Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170308 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 08, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the sites on your own II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes Draft minutes for February 8th, 2017 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring- 211 E. Hallam G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 4:50 210 S. First Street- Substantial Amendment to a Major Development approval, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING B. 6:00 541 Race Alley- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 5 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent from the meeting was Willis Pember. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 25th, 2017, Mr. DeFrancia seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Halferty asked for public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda and there were none. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer was driving and noticed that at the corner of 6th and Smuggler, there had been a lot of siding removed and replaced with a primer only and raw boards. He said they were painting in 38 degrees and that any primer should be coated within two or three days and the longer it sits, the weaker it becomes. This will need to be redone in the spring and will need to be tented, heated and finished immediately. Ms. Simon said the siding was replaced previously and there is new siding going up and suggested going over the contractor licensing guidelines regarding siding. Ms. Berko asked for an update on the state conference in Denver and Ms. Simon said that she will give an update at the retreat on the projects that were presented. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty asked if there were any disclosures of conflicts of interest. Mr. Whipple spoke up regarding agenda item two and said he will not be participating. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Halferty asked for any project monitoring items and Ms. Simon responded that she had two items. There is one for Mr. Halferty at 980 Gibson and one for Mr. Whipple at 301 Lake. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she will be following up with the board regarding project monitoring and have a few projects that don’t have a monitor so she will be checking to see who can pick up some. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Halferty asked if any have been issued and Ms. Simon answered no. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan stated that she submitted one for Agenda item 2 – 300-312 E Hyman and everything is in order. P1 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 CALL UP REPORTS: There were none. Ms. Simon reminds everyone that the retreat will be on February 22nd and to meet in Council Chambers at 5 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Halferty moved along to old business item A: 533 W Hallam continued public hearing to November 8th, 2017. Ms. Simon said the property owner is considering several items. MOTION: Mr. DiFrancia moved to approve the continuance, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item A: 232 E Main – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design and Growth Management Review. HPC approved conceptual design of this project several months ago which involved demolishing the existing gas station on site and replacing it with a new retail building. Applicant requested and received approval to allocate more of their total allowable square footage towards commercial development and none towards residential. HPC granted authorization and allowed setback variances. Parking will be mitigated through cash in lieu as well as public amenity as 10% of the property will be available to public in the form of amenity space. Band of open area across the front and Monarch side of property. There will be landscape improvements as well. HPC now needs to look at final design review and growth management regarding the creation of new net leasable space. HPC was very in favor of the project, but concerned about the entry onto Main St. and the awning on Monarch side of the street. HPC did not want to grant a variance and now applicant has retractable awning. Mr. Moyer asked if anyone would deal with where the two rooves meet between the resource to the west and the new building to the east. Ms. Simon stated that the roof design was approved previously. Applicant Sara Adams with Bendon Adams present along with Mark Hunt and Dwayne Romero. She stated that this is a 100% commercial project located on the cusp of the commercial core district and across the alley is R6 and across the street is C1 and is just under 6000 sq ft lot. The site plan shows the setbacks and that they have added a walk way to distinguish the main street front entrance. Ms. Adams showed the landscape plan with perennials and a bike rack and made note that they want to mitigate through housing credits. There are more defined front doors on Main with a walkway along with a significant grade change towards the alley. The materials include wood for the back portion along Main St and metal panel and aluminum windows. There will be very simple light fixtures and finally the proposed final elevation showing the more defined entry. Ms. Adams states that they are very happy with proposed conditions of approval and happy to answer questions. P2 II.B. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Mr. Halferty asks where the glazing with the chicken wire is proposed and Ms. Adams states that it is in the front and there is a mix of different types and textures of glass. Mr. Moyer asks if the wood siding is horizontal or vertical and Ms. Adams says that it is horizontal. Mr. Halferty open up public comment and there is none and opens up board comments. Mr. Lai said he thinks it’s a great project, however, he thinks you are 95% there. He said he wanted to talk about the 5% that he did not get to see. He said the renderings are beautiful, but asked why they didn’t repeat the angle of the Cortina building located next door. Mr. Halferty states that the materials, fenestration and dimensional calculations will be verified at final permit review. Ms. Greenwood states that she was not here for conceptual approval and said she likes the building and appreciates the minutes and reading up on the project. She said she has an issue with the proliferation with the wall of glass and that the guidelines state to use components that are traditionally seen on Main Street. She feels that at night it will be full on lit up and has a real problem with that. She feels that it is wrong and not the face the Aspen and belongs in Denver or Vail and it will be a flashlight in the downtown core and that a new solution is needed and doesn’t meet fenestration guideline. Mr. Lai said he is in sympathy with Ms. Greenwood’s comment and would like to see the fenestration articulated. Ms. Berko asked for clarification on the glass and questioned if the different materials are appropriate and if more appropriate to have solids and glass. Mr. Moyer stated it reminded him of the A frames that were across from the North of Nell. He said that Ms. Berko and Ms. Greenwood are dead on regarding the glass. He asked if it is possible to have translucent glass to allow light to enter, but not one from the street to see in or some kind of curtain. Ms. Greenwood said that it is a hardship and we must deal with the fenestration. Mr. Whipple said he thinks the applicant has done a nice job of giving us varied opacities of glass. He thinks the light will be shielded going down the street. He stated he sides with staff and thinks that it is very appropriate and wants to sit in there and look out at the mountain. Mr. DeFrancia agreed with Mr. Whipple. P3 II.B. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Mr. Hunt stated that you can see the lighting in the renderings is not grand lighting and will not be lit from the ceilings. He said he would be willing to stipulate no can lighting other than in the mezzanine. Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t understand why we have the design guidelines and they are not followed and says she is surprised that staff didn’t look at this harder. She said she likes the building, but this is a design issue. Mr. Whipple said he appreciates where Ms. Greenwood is coming from, but thinks it is unfounded. It is not going to be a Cabelas and that it is a different scale than Jerome and won’t bleed out like a spectrum of light. He likes what staff did and that they gave us different options. Mr. Blaich states that at no point has Mr. Hunt been definitive on the use and he thinks that would somewhat determine the light aspect. He said he can’t imagine this if you put wood on the upper level and thinks the problems could be resolved with the lighting. Mr. Whipple thinks the entrance is a great improvement. Ms. Berko said the quandary is the guideline, not the lighting. It is a slippery slope and at what point does the guideline hold no weight? Ms. Simon addressed the concerns by stating that it is not as if no guideline was applied. At the Cortina, there is a concrete block screen wall that has a neat perforation to it. They are doing a good job playing off of that. The mullion placement and size of each sash is very similar to proportions, narrow and tall. Is it the same approach we’ve seen in the past, no, but they are continuing to work on the glazing and creating a good relationship with all elements of the street. Ms. Greenwood replied that she does not see it. It is a solid piece of glass and that is how it is going to read and even more so at night. Mr. Whipple stated that he agrees with Amy. Mr. Lai stated that he agrees with Ms. Greenwood. Mr. Halferty stated that the fenestration as discussed has some valid points. In reference to 7.16 – I do feel like the fenestration does the vertical nature, the horizontal, not exactly. This is kind of an anomaly and I think the applicant has done an excellent job as far as playing with the fenestration and getting the mass and materials to work. They have identified the front entry and it is a different building, but understand your comments regarding glazing, but we can’t control it as the HPC board. It is something that Planning & Zoning can look into. Our purview is to administer section 7 and section 12 of our guidelines. Resolution #3 motion by Mr. DeFrancia, seconded by Mr. Whipple. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. DeFrancia, yes, Ms. Berko, no; Mr. Whipple, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes, Mr. Moyer, no. Motion carried 4 to 3. P4 II.B. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Item B – 300-312 E Hyman Mr. Whipple recused himself Ms. Simon presented Item B and stated that it is the final design review to convert Crystal Palace and adjacent shop to a lodge. When HPC conducted the conceptual review, demolition was discussed as well as utility trash and new parking with cash in lieu. The applicant will not provide any public amenity on the site, but there will be street scape improvements particularly on the Monarch St. side. Here tonight for final major development review and final commercial design review. We will have another hearing on this project on March 22nd, which will be the growth management review to receive allotments for the lodge rooms. Although this building may look more Victorian than any other building in town, It’s over-the-top in its detailing and not a lot of original historic fabric here. The most historic part of the site is the very corner. There have been deterioration issues over the years that caused a partial roof collapse. There was also a substantial expansion done, mostly everything was demolished for this in the 70’s and the only thing that is original is a small section on the ground floor facing Hyman. The applicants plan at conceptual was to keep some of what was already there regardless, but were also required to provide a preservation plan for tonight. That’s what we need to discuss tonight is if we are willing to expand the concept of what demolition is on this site? It’s going to be a message that needs to be explained to the public. The alternative is to stick with where we were before and keep the construction that was done previously and just do the best to improve from there. This project is going to need some staff and monitor work. We currently need some tweaks to drawings before building permit submittal. The second most important topic of discussion is regarding the materials and windows on the new addition. In terms of fenestration, we are concerned that the windows on the ground and upper floors are the same, but there is good opportunity for the project to receive final approval tonight. Mr. DeFrancia asked how much of the corner building is from the 1970’s looking at the white owl sign. Amy stated that the owl sign is from the Victorian era, but was repainted in the 1970’s and may have shifted on the building. Ms. Greenwood asked about the two windows on the west façade, second story and if there is anything historic there. Ms. Simon said it was a best effort to replicate. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Adams repeated that this is a request for final design approval on the lodging project with a restaurant and café on the ground level in the commercial core historic district. The packet showed images starting from 1900 throughout today. The proposal is to leave the mural as it is and to restore the openings. The comments from the HPC conceptual review delineated between new and old, P5 II.B. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 the possibility of looking at the use of different materials and highlighting the cornice and return of the building. The preferred option is to use brick for the addition to connect new and old. The community has a relationship with the existing configuration of the Crystal Palace. Regarding windows, they think it is important to take different preservation philosophies throughout town and it keeps things interesting and dynamic. They want to create a simple and warm, decorative approach to restoring the building. The 3rd floor is setback 30 to 38 feet from the front façade. Regarding window shape, we are looking at more vertical windows as opposed to the horizontal ones presented in conceptual. Ms. Adams referred back to the slide from the 1900’s to look at the window shapes and repetitions to what is being proposed as they tried to come up with something new and fresh as an approach to an addition to a historic resource. The brick will need to be sourced and compared on site with the monitor, making sure it’s the right color, size, etc. The metal relates back to the history of the building and the mining company that was in the building before and highlights the warmth of the brick. Mr. Romero made a statement regarding the referral comments on page 7 of the agenda and stated that the Engineering department was requesting that they will need to abandon the well easement in the NW corner of the lot. For the record, that well easement runs to the benefit of a different private owner and we can’t just abandon it because it is owned by Hecht, but we will work with them. It is in all of our interests to clean that up. Regarding staff recommendation and acknowledge the conditions and one note to underscore, we would encourage and support conditions 5 and 6, which speak to the storefront and fenestration while working with staff and a monitor for assembly of the entries, bays and composition. Mr. Halferty opened up public comment: Jim Curtis stated his name and said he is currently a tenant in the building. The building is in dire need of TLC and thinks it’s a great project and a great use for the building and very very supportive of the project. On a design level, he would like to see HPC support the brick band and preferred option. He would like to hear comments regarding the metal on the east side. Let’s do it, it’s good for the town and the town really needs it. Jim Farey stated his name and said he has lived here for 3.5 years and said that this is not a small undertaking and even more beautiful than what was talked about on Main St. The brick is an outstanding option and loves the balance of the steel. Public comment closed. Mr. Halferty stated that they are in final approval and looking at items identified by staff such as final detailing to be outlined, consistency of drawings, reconstruction of the upper floor, documentation of the brick, restudy of the south and west facades, storefront cornice is identified, restudy of Hyman Ave façade, fenestration on the ground floor, cut sheets as far as doors and windows, materials at entrance regarding brick versus metal. Reviewed relevant design guidelines and stated sections that were P6 II.B. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 reviewed. The suggested motion is on page 8 with conditions and at this point we can move into the discussion phase. Ms. Greenwood offered her thoughts by saying she really likes this project. The development from conceptual totally matches what was talked about. The stepping back of the new façade to the old is very successful and gives us a little more history on a 3-dimensional basis. Ms. Greenwood feels that the brick is the way to go on the building. The windows of the new addition being the same and clad all in metal creates a certain positive backdrop for the resource to be front and center and very successful. She feels that introducing new windows would be a mistake. The restudy of the storefronts on Hyman could be handled through a monitor and she feels the right way to go and headed in the right direction in terms of restoration. She said it was an interesting presentation and is in favor of moving this project forward. There is nothing in the conditions she doesn’t agree with and would like to see it move forward exactly as is. Mr. DeFrancia agreed with Ms. Greenwood. He thinks it’s a great project and likes what is being done with it given what we know about the historic characteristics. Perception has a lot to do with it. The fact that you have held on to the historic character is great and you all are doing a great job. Mr. Blaich agreed that they have come a long way and this information is very important to get out to the public so they can understand what is going on since it’s a major project in the community and to keep everyone from having second thoughts about it. In favor of the project and feels very positive about it. Ms. Berko commented that it was quite a sleuthing job. Educating the public will be critical. Fine with all conditions and that is the piece that is important. Mr. Lai agrees with the general consensus. Impressed with the archaeological detective work that went into the project. Would like to see articulation between floors. Thinks there is too much glass on second floor. Mr. Moyer said he thinks it’s a good project. Mr. Halferty stated that he was not here for the conceptual and really appreciates staffs comments. The applicant presented a well-executed project. The project does conform to the standards and meets the guidelines and he supports the proposal as presented. Ms. Berko asked if the proportion isn’t a little overwhelming in thinking about Mr. Lai’s comments in regards to the east and the west. P7 II.B. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Motion: Ms. Greenwood moved to approve Resolution #4 with the conditions stated, seconded by Bob. Mr. Hunt said the project is modern. What they are trying to accomplish is exactly what Ms. Greenwood was saying. It is consistent, but in the backdrop and makes the historic structure pop. When things started out, the windows were much bigger. It is important to look at the scale of the block and the second level of the Motherlode with massive openings and as you go down to the Wheeler, they aren’t big in comparison. It’s just consistent and makes the corner pop. When you look at the scale of the block, it does fit in well. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes, Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Ms. Simon called for two monitors on this project. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Greenwood will take on this project and Mr. Halferty will take on the Main St. project. Meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. P8 II.B. 9 P9 II.B. MEMO February 24, 2017 To: City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Philp Jeffreys and Mirte Mallory 215 E. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Berko Studio Garden-Facing Window/ Door Replacement The Berko AspenModern historic renovation is progressing smoothly. The Berko Photo Studio’s public- facing façade will soon be fully-restored and showcased on Hallam Street. The following is a brief summary of our request to replace the existing 2-panel window/door with a 5- panel window/door to improve its energy performance and functionality. Existing Conditions Below is the window/door that was designed by Ted Mularz, per the original Studio blueprints. Of note, the window/door fills the entire opening. P10 II.F. At time of construction, due to budgets and availability, the original Mularz design for the large garden- facing window/door was not implemented and a smaller window/door was installed. In addition to the sliding glass panel, a sliding screen door was also installed (See below.) Existing condition AspenModern Restoration In our original application to HPC we proposed replacing the existing window/door with a more energy efficient model. Subsequently, we decided to keep the existing window/door for cost reduction purposes, as presented in our Final HPC approval. Unfortunately, the decision to keep the window/door was not relayed to our Mechanical Engineer. As a result the mechanical system that has been designed for our home cannot keep up with both the heat loss and heat gain generated by the old singlepane, very inefficient, poorly insulated window/door. As a result, we requested to restore the window/door to the size originally designed by Mularz. We feel that this is an improvement to the historical integrity of the structure. Staff and monitor supported this request and the contractor has since moved forward with the modification of the opening. Livability Enhancement As you may recall, the rear, private, garden-façade of the Berko Photo Studio underwent several modifications in order to accommodate the livability of its new use as a full-time residence. In the spirit of adapting the functionality of this structure to accommodate a family, we are requesting your support to install a new high-energy efficient 5-panel folding door in lieu of the existing 2-panel window/door glass slider. As reference, please see the following renderings and refer to the Studio Elevation Comparison Sheet A20x. P11 II.F. Interior view of proposed wndow/door replacement Public’s view of proposed window/door replacement (seen from the alley) P12 II.F. Please consider the following as you weigh the merits of this request: • As the Studio’s garage and parking are on the alley, the rear entrance to the Studio has emerged as an important access for day-to-day functionality such as for groceries etc. • The proposed 5-panel folding window/door includes a single swing door, which would be adjacent to the kitchen, thereby enhancing the ease of use. • The size and weight of a 2-panel slider make it unwieldy to open and close on a quick, frequent, and routine basis for people of all ages and strengths. • Given that the location of the garages on the alley largely shields the view of the Studio’s entire rear facade, the window/door configuration (2 vs 5 panels) is not noticable to the public nor does it impact the public’s appreciation of the renovated historic resource. • When reviewing the attached, Studio Elevation Comparison Sheet A20x, note that the renderings in the middle are intended to show the composition of the proposed panel modification. This perspective cannot be seen from the public right of way. The public’s view plane of the Studio’s rear façade is illustrated in the 3rd images, those farthest to the right. We look forward to discussing this sliding door modification with you on March 8th. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Philip Jeffreys and Mirte Mallory P13 II.F. © 2016 Harry Teague Architects.Berko Studio Duplex129 Emma Rd. Suite A Basalt, CO 81621 970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.com www.harryteaguearchitects.com consultant information date stamp issue PRINT DATE: 12/7/16 11:01 AMDesign Development01/27/2016 211/215 East Hallam StreetAspen, CO 81611JOB NO.: 1403 04/04/2016 Construction Documents 06/20/2016 CD Revision 10/13/2016 Dimension Updates 11/16/2016 Integrated Construction Set A20x studio elevation comparison1403_BERKO_ACTIVE_3, BIM Server: htabimserver - BIM Server 18/1403_BERKO_ACTIVE_3HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTSBAC +90' -1 lower level +100' 1 main level +110' 2 upper level +120'-8" 3 roof all existing studio windows and exterior doors to be the same size as original, replaced with new insulatedunits projection into setback allowed per HPC Resolution # 2, Series of 2016 trim panels toconnect surroundingwindow trim w23 w22 w20 e03 w24a w24b w21c w21a w21b S.G. egress side yardsetbackproperty line 05 06 proposed grade B AC +90' -1 lower level +100' 1 main level +110' 2 upper level +120'-8" 3 roof all existing studio windows and exterior doors to be the same size as original, replaced with new insulated units projection into setback allowed perHPC Resolution # 2, Series of 2016 trim panels to connect surrounding window trim w23 w22 w20 e03 w24a w24b w21c w21a w21b S.G. egress side yardsetbackproperty line 05 06 proposed grade 01. white painted corrugated metal 02. 03. 04. 3-coat natural stucco with sgraffito detailing vertical smooth dark stained native wood polygal translucent panel repaired and refinished existing diagonal wood05. 06.painted concrete masonry units MATERIAL LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 South Courtyard Elevation 5-Panel Folding Door SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 South Courtyard Elev Large Slider 3 Alley Perspective 5-Panel Folding Door 6 Alley Perspective Large Slider5South Courtyard Perspective Large Slider 2 South Courtyard Perspective 5-Panel Folding Door P14II.F. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 210 S. First Street- Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval and Variations, Public Hearing DATE: March 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is an 5,250 square foot lot that contains a Victorian era home which was restored and expanded in 2008. When HPC approval was granted for the work on the Victorian, approval was also granted to demolish and replace a non-contributing 1950s era residential structure along the alley. The property owner has never re-built the second unit. The original design was not approved for building permit because it was determined during permit review that it exceeded the height limit. A redesign was approved through a Substantial Amendment but not pursued. The design is being revisited again now due at least in part to changes to the land use code which have made the amended 2008 design over the allowed floor area limit. This Substantial Amendment not only includes changes to the design but also includes new setback reductions and a floor area bonus request. Revisions to this approval must comply with current design guidelines and land use code requirements in order to move forward. Whenever a property receives a land use approval, a three year period of Vested Rights is established. During that time, the approval is protected from changes to the land use code. Vested Rights for this project have expired. The approval remains valid for up to seven years after the expiration of Vested Rights, but subject to code changes. The applicant’s right to construct this second residential unit on the property will expire on November 8, 2017, unless a complete application for building permit is submitted and pursued according to the time limitations on permits. This property, which is less than the minimum lot size required in the zone district, would not be allowed to have a second unit today. The right to replace the 1950s era structure that was demolished will expire in 8 months. The work that the applicant completed on the Victorian structure several years ago was excellent and resulted in a reasonably sized addition that preserved the scale of the historic resource. Directing the remaining square footage into a detached new structure is ideal. The footprint of the project proposed within this Substantial Amendment is very similar to the previous approval, but the form, fenestration and materials have changed. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the new design guidelines or the criteria for variations and should be continued for restudy. APPLICANT: John Key, 135 Hopkins Ltd., represented by Gretchen Greenwood and Associates. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-59-112. P15 IV.A. 2 ADDRESS: 210 S. First, Lot A and the west 22 ½ feet of Lot B, Block 60, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. (Please note that the address of the Victorian house on the lot is 135 W. Hopkins Avenue. 201 S. First is the address that has been assigned to the subject, unbuilt home.) ZONING: R-6. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT All changes to HPC approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. A Substantial Amendment is in essence a combined Conceptual/Final approval. The Commission is asked to review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other relevant regulations under the HPC’s purview. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Staff Response: The packet includes comparisons of the approved and proposed elevations. The massing and roof form of the upper floor are revised from the previous approval, as are all materials and fenestration. Staff finds that the amendment does not comply with the highlighted guidelines listed as “Exhibit A” to this memo. Guideline 11.6 indicates that a clear relationship between the historic and new structures on the lot must be achieved within at least two of three categories; form, fenestration and materials. While the new home does make a gesture to the gambrel roof form that characterizes the west façade of the Victorian, the asymmetry of the west façade of the new house undermines compatibility between the two. The fenestration on the new house is significantly different than the Victorian in terms of size, arrangement, and mullion placement. The materials indicated for the new structure do connect it to the Victorian, but overall the guideline is not met. The ground floor of the new house has a floor to ceiling height of about 10,’ while the upper floor to ceiling height is about 13.’ This creates a scale issue with resource, which historically accommodated two living floors within a smaller volume. The very visible stairway on the north side of the new home leading to a second level deck emphasizes the height difference between the buildings. Staff recommends restudy of the design to address these concerns. FLOOR AREA BONUS The application includes a request for a floor area bonus. A maximum of 500 square feet can be awarded to the property. 330 square feet was previously approved and allocated to the Victorian. 170 square feet remains. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: P16 IV.A. 3 a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The project is not significantly larger than what was approved previously, but new floor area calculation methodologies have resulted in the home being over the maximum allowance. The bonus would resolve this issue. The project could be eligible for a floor area bonus in recognition of the fact that the property owner was willing to make only a small addition to the historic resource and direct the rest of the development rights into a detached structure on the alley. This meets criteria b and f. However, the project is in conflict with some of the design guidelines and therefore a bonus is not appropriate at this time. HPC is not obligated to grant a bonus. The issue has arisen because during the postponement of constructing this house, new limitations on floor area have been implemented and are being applied to all development. SETBACK VARIATIONS The proposal as designed requires setback variations. Reductions to the front yard, rear yard and both side yards were granted as part of the original approval. Additional variations are needed now because of minor changes to the proposed footprint of the new house. Also, the previous approval should have been reviewed for a combined sideyard setback reduction and was not. The new variations needed are a 2’6” west sideyard reduction, a 7’ combined sideyard setback reduction, and a 1’ reduction in the minimum distance between buildings (a new lightwell is placed closer to the rear of the Victorian than any portion of the previously approved design was located.) In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The west sideyard reduction and combined sideyard r eduction are consistent with the siting of the new house that has been accepted by HPC previously. Approximately half of this property has been devoted to the preservation of a one story P17 IV.A. 4 historic building. The envelope within which the r emaining floor area can be placed is limited. It is beneficial to allow appropriate setback reductions in order to distance the new building as much as possible from the resource. Staff does support the west sideyard reduction and the combined sideyard reduction. Sta ff does not support the reduction of the distance between buildings. This could be resolved through relocating a lightwell that serves the basement level of the new house. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: · approve the application, · approve the application with conditions, · disapprove the application, or · continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the project to for restudy. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A, Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 135 W. Hopkins, Substantial Amendment 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. · Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. · In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. · Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. · Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. · Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. P18 IV.A. 5 · In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. · Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. · Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. · Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. · Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. · Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. P19 IV.A. 6 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. · Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. · Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-by-case basis. · Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. · Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. · Landscape uplighting is not allowed. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. · Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. · AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. · Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. · The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. · A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. · Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. · Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. · The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. · Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. · When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. P20 IV.A. 7 · When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale · When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. · This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. · Overall, details shall be modest in character. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. · The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. · New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. · Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. · One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. · On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. · Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. · Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. · Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. · Window air conditioning units are not allowed. · Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. · Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds · In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. · Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. P21 IV.A. P22IV.A. P23IV.A. P24IV.A. P25IV.A. P26IV.A. P27IV.A. P28IV.A. P29IV.A. P30IV.A. P31IV.A. P32IV.A. P33IV.A. P34IV.A. P35IV.A. P36IV.A. P37IV.A. P38IV.A. P39IV.A. P40IV.A. P41IV.A. P42IV.A. P43IV.A. P44IV.A. P45IV.A. P46IV.A. P47IV.A. P48IV.A. P49IV.A. P50IV.A. P51IV.A. P52IV.A. P53IV.A. P54IV.A. P55IV.A. P56IV.A. P57IV.A. P58IV.A. P59IV.A. P60IV.A. P61IV.A. P62IV.A. P63IV.A. P64IV.A. P65IV.A. P66IV.A. P67IV.A. P68IV.A. P69IV.A. P70IV.A. P71IV.A. P72IV.A. P73IV.A. P74IV.A. P75IV.A. P76IV.A. P77IV.A. P78IV.A. P79IV.A. P80IV.A. P81IV.A. P82IV.A. P83IV.A. P84IV.A. P85IV.A. P86IV.A. P87IV.A. P88IV.A. P89IV.A. P90IV.A. P91IV.A. P92IV.A. P93IV.A. P94IV.A. P95IV.A. P96IV.A. P97IV.A. P98IV.A. P99IV.A. P100IV.A. P101IV.A. P102IV.A. P103IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 541 Race Alley- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 8, 2017 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: On April 27, 2016, HPC reviewed and approved Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations for a project that involves linking the two historic cabins on this site together for use as a single family house with an attached garage. The approval included a floor area bonus, setback variations and Residential Design Standards variations. No aspects of the design were to be restudied for Final review, which the applicant asks HPC to grant at this meeting. 541 Race Alley is part of the Fox Crossing neighborhood, an area which received approval to be subdivided into 13 residential lots in 2005. The approvals included several historic preservation requirements, including landmark designation of a Victorian era home, designation of the two log cabins which are the subject of this review, creation of a small park fronting the historic resources, and redistribution of some of the development rights off of the historic sites and onto the surrounding new homes. These two log cabins, named Line Shack #1 and Line Shack #2 by the original owner, were built in 1964 to serve as rental units. At the time of their designation, one cabin was sitting on the subject site, Lot 6, and one was sitting behind the Victorian house, on Lot 5. The cabin that was sitting behind the Victorian was relocated, with HPC’s approval, when construction began on the Victorian last year. Currently, both Line Shacks are sitting on the subject parcel, waiting for this project to commence. Leading up to this application, the current owner, and a previous owner removed 1,750 square feet of the development rights from the site in the form of 7 TDRs. The result is an allowed floor area that is just enough to cover the two historic structures with a small balance to apply to this proposal. The house can gain additional living area by taking advantage of several floor area exemptions in the land use code related to basement and garage space, and will be assisted by the floor area bonus that HPC granted last year. P104 IV.B. APPLICANT: Fox Crossing Properties Lots 4 & 6, LLC, represented by Willis Pember Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006. ADDRESS: 541 Race Alley, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Redevelopment of this site is subject to Major Development Review, a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. HPC’s 2016 Conceptual approval is binding in regards to the location and form of the structure including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Final review is the last step in the land use review process before building permit. Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. The applicable design guidelines are attached as Exhibit A and are found in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. This project is subject to the “old” HPC guidelines because those are the guidelines that were in place when this project review was initiated. Staff has highlighted guidelines that need special attention from HPC in Exhibit A. The proposal is to use the cabins as a single family home, with an attached garage. Ideally the original subdivision approval would have allowed a more generous lot for these two buildings, which were constructed side by side, close to Race Alley, with about 15’ between them. Preservation of these buildings was urged by the City, not the applicant at that time. The lot on which they are to sit is only about 14’ wider than the footprint of the two structures combined. This does not allow for the project to comply with side setback requirements of 10’ per side. HPC accommodated this at Conceptual review by providing the necessary sideyard setback reductions. The two cabins will sit 8’ apart. A connector will link the log cabins together, and a second connector will link Line Shack #2 to the garage. As noted at Conceptual review, this project reflects HPC’s goals for small scaled additions that do not overwhelm the historic resource. The connector elements that are proposed to allow movement between the two cabins and the garage are low in profile and slip below historic eavelines. The additions are simple and take architectural cues from the historic cabins, but are clearly of a different time. The exterior of the historic cabins will remain essentially as they are, with repairs as needed. The materials for the new construction play off of the historic resource. Instead of logs with chinking between them, the new garage is faced with a rainscreen, with the void between the boards mimicking the mortar lines on the cabins. P105 IV.B. The cabins were built on CMU foundations. The architect proposes the new foundation to be board formed concrete, which is an appropriate way to distinguish the new portions of the house. Beneath the cabins, instead of board formed concrete as rendered, staff recommends a standard concrete finish, perhaps scored to suggest the original CMU. Staff is concerned with the dark stain proposed for the log cabins, although color is not reviewed by HPC. A color which is too dark has the potential to dramatically change the character of the cabins and their reading as rustic, modest, 1960s era buildings. The architect is asked to be sensitive to this issue in the final color selection. The most unique aspect of the project, in terms of materiality, is the proposal to glaze both the connectors with a mirrored glass. The only exception is the north facing wall of the connector to the garage, which is represented as conventional glass. The roofs of the connectors will be glass as well. The intent is that the mirror will reflect the surrounding architecture and landscape in a way that eliminates their reading as a wall surface. The buildings will have the appearance of being detached from each other, which would be a good preservation outcome. The most relevant HPC guideline to consider is 10.11, which requires new materials to be compatible with the original palette by being similar or subordinate in character. The mirror is not similar, but it is arguably subordinate. The extent of the mirrored surface is somewhat limited, with about 60-80 square feet facing per façade on the east, south and west. The south facing mirrored surface is not oriented towards a public view, while the east and west surfaces are. The east and south facing surfaces sit approximately 2’ lower in elevation than Race Alley, which is the vehicular access to the site. Staff can support the concept of the mirrored glass meeting the HPC guidelines, however HPC must also consider the following applicable Residential Design Standard, which states: Materials The following standards must be met: a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. In order to allow the use of this material, HPC must find that the proposal will: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, P106 IV.B. b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Again, staff finds that the mirrored glazing may be appropriate in this site-specific situation, where the goal is to reinforce the original character of the cabins as free-standing from each other. Connectors have been allowed in this project in order to improve the livability of the home, but their impacts could be mitigated. It is noted that glass connectors, which are frequently used and encouraged in historic preservation projects, have their own pro’s and con’s in terms of visual impacts. The applicant has offered an on-site mock up for HPC to ensure the outcome of the mirrored glass is appropriate. Staff recommends that, in the meanwhile, the approved material for all elevations of the connectors be glass, as is proposed for the north side of the connector to the garage. During construction, once the adequate progress has been made to allow an effective mock-up of the mirror proposal, a meeting of HPC shall be convened at the site. The board in attendance may approve or disapprove the mock-up. In addition to HPC’s preservation goals, it is important to avoid creating a nuisance to neighbors or wildlife. This is a creative proposal, but needs to be considered responsibly. A decision in the field is a recommended condition of approval. The application includes a detailed landscape plan. The landscape materials are generally low in height. No trees are proposed. This helps preserve an openness on the site and views of the historic resources. HPC’s guidelines for landscapes are generally more concerned with what occurs in the foreground of the resource than in more private areas of the site, such as the backyard. The setting of this project is unique. The front yard and front door officially face Fox Crossing Park, not Race Alley. With that in mind, staff has some concerns with compliance with guidelines 1.9 and 4.1. Regarding 1.9, the landscape plan does not clearly show a pathway leading to the front door of the house, which is in Line Shack #2. While the applicant may more commonly enter from the Race Alley side, the expression of a clear entry point is needed on the Fox Crossing Park side. This issue is also highlighted in guideline 4.1 which discourages the relocation of the historic entry point from the landmarked structure into the new construction. Staff is unclear what is intended with the “lawn pave system, seeded” which covers most of the yard area in front of Line Shack #2. The landscape architect should define this more clearly to ensure that the result is more grass than paving. Similarly, no elevations are provided for the site wall along the north property line, in the foreground of the cabin. The landscape proposed for this project is significantly more formal, linear, and modern that what previously existed here. Aspen HPC has typically supported a level of contrast between old and new, however the change to the setting, combined with the more sophisticated color palette on the cabins, and the ambient lighting of the front porches with lights set into the porch decking rather than a more traditional porch sconce do represent a character shift. Staff recommends that this be considered carefully, particularly at the front of the house. The inclusion of a simple walkway, a sconce at the front door, and careful consideration of the paving and site wall in front of the cabins are all recommended conditions of approval. P107 IV.B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval with the following conditions: 1. The foundation below the historic cabins shall be revised to be a standard concrete finish. The architect may propose scoring the concrete like the original CMU block if desired. The proposal must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2. The approved material for all elevations of the connectors is glass, as is proposed for the north side of the connector to the garage. During construction, once adequate progress has been made to allow an effective mock-up of the mirror proposal, a meeting of HPC shall be convened at the site. The board in attendance may approve or disapprove the mock-up if found to meet the guidelines and Residential Design Standards criteria for Variation. This meeting will be a public meeting, but will not require additional notice to the adjacent property owners. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that, to the extent HOA approval is required for materials, approval for the mirrored glass has been secured. If HPC approves the mirrored glass, a change order to the building permit must be processed. 3. The landscape plan must be revised to include a simple walkway to the front door of Line Shack #2. The design must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 4. The lighting on the front porch of Line Shack #2 must be revised to delete the lights to be installed in the porch decking and replace them with a single sconce by the front door. This will create a more traditional lighting solution and may also help to identify Line Shack #2, more so than Line Shack #1, as an entry point. The sconce must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 5. The landscape architect shall provide more information on the lawn pave system in the front yard of the cabins and the site wall on the north property line. These elements may not proceed without being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 6. Through HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2016, HPC granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus, sideyard setback variations and a waiver from the Residential Design Standards Build-to Lines and front porch depth. 7. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structures can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. P108 IV.B. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 541 Race Alley. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. EXHIBITS: Resolution #__, Series of 2017 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application text Exhibit C: Application drawings Exhibit D: HPC minutes from Conceptual approval, April 27, 2016 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 541 Race Alley, Final review 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street-facing facade. · This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. P109 IV.B. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. · A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. · Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. · Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. · This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. · Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. · Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. · The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. · Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. · Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. · Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. · Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. · Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. · It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. · Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. · Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. · Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. P110 IV.B. · Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. · Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. · Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. · Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. · If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. · Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. · Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. · Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. · Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. · Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. · If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub- frames or panning around the perimeter. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. · Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. · Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. · If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. · If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. · Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. P111 IV.B. · Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. · Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. · Repair only those features that are deteriorated. · Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. · Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. · Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. · A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. · Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. · If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. · Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. · If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. · A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. · A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. · Seams should be of a low profile. · A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. · On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. · Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. · A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. · An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. P112 IV.B. · An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. · An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. · An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. · A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. · The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. · The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. · All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. · Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. · Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. · Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. · Do not wash an entire building facade in light. · Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. · Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. · Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. · If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. · Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. · If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. · Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. P113 IV.B. · Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. P114 IV.B. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 541 RACE ALLEY, LOT 6, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2017 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fox Crossing Properties Lots 4 & 6, LLC, represented by Willis Pember Architects, has requested HPC approval for Final Major Development review for the property located at 541 Race Alley; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 8, 2017. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants Final Major Development review with the following conditions: 1. The foundation below the historic cabins shall be revised to be a standard concrete finish. The architect may propose scoring the concrete like the original CMU block if desired. The proposal must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2. The approved material for all elevations of the connectors is glass, as is proposed for the north side of the connector to the garage. During construction, once adequate progress has been made to allow an effective mock-up of the mirror proposal, a meeting of HPC shall be convened at the site. The board in attendance may approve or disapprove the mock-up if found to meet the guidelines and Residential Design Standards criteria for Variation. This meeting will be a public meeting, but will not require additional notice to the adjacent property owners. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that, to the extent HOA approval is required for materials, approval for the mirrored glass has been P115 IV.B. secured. If HPC approves the mirrored glass, a change order to the building permit must be processed. 3. The landscape plan must be revised to include a simple walkway to the front door of Line Shack #2. The design must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 4. The lighting on the front porch of Line Shack #2 must be revised to delete the lights to be installed in the porch decking and replace them with a single sconce by the front door. This will create a more traditional lighting solution and may also help to identify Line Shack #2, more so than Line Shack #1, as an entry point. The sconce must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 5. The landscape architect shall provide more information on the lawn pave system in the front yard of the cabins and the site wall on the north property line. These elements may not proceed without being reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 6. Through HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2016, HPC granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus, sideyard setback variations and a waiver from the Residential Design Standards Build-to Lines and front porch depth. 7. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structures can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: P116 IV.B. Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 541 Race Alley. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of March, 2017. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney James DeFrancia, Acting Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy Clerk P117 IV.B. P118 IV.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707392006 on 02/20/2017 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P119 IV.B. B & Z 2010 REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 728 E FRANCIS Z & B 2010 REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 728 E FRANCIS BUNEVICH PETER & BRIGITTE COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80917 5301 CRACKER BARREL RIDLING JERRY & MURIEL REV TRUST NAPA, CA 94558 1110 STONYBROOK DR SANDERS RICHARD ALLEN BIRMINGHAM, AL 35242 2041 BROOK HIGHLAND RIDGE GAGLIANO MICHAEL A ORANGE, CA 92867 2240 E ATHENS AVE MANNING SARAH E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10665 SPEER CHRISTINE REV TRUST BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34133 PO BOX 2734 NUGENT KATHRYN M LIVING TRUST GREENBRAE, CA 94904 501 VIA CASITAS APT 106 KERR MICHAEL KRIS LIVING TRUST BASALT, CO 81621 1006 LAUREN LN MOORE THOMAS P & TERRY L BASALT, CO 81621 802 KESTREL CT BELL MARTIN W SEATTLE, WA 98105 5217 18TH AVE NE HUNTER CREEK LLC CHICAGO, IL 60654 350 NORTH LASALLE ST #800 GEREB BARRY ASPEN, CO 81611 931 VINE ST 941 VINE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 534 SPRUCE ST 701G LLC SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 333 TEXAS ST #2290 KANTER MARC E STUART, FL 34996 3980 SE OLD ST LUCIE BLVD BITTNER SHIRLEY MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 123 VINE ST WARLOP ELIZABETH F ASPEN, CO 81611 946 VINE ST #946 LUU TONY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 795 HEGARTY THOMAS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1475 SHERMAN YONEKO SUZUKI PARACHUTE, CO 81635 206 SOUTH RIDGE COURT LAI RICHARD TSENG-YU AND LOS ALAMOS, NM 87544 4574 FAIRWAY DR CARDAMONE JAMES M & MICHELE W ASPEN, CO 816111075 140 PITKIN MESA DR OHAGAN KEVIN M & KATHRYN G RICHMOND, VA 232263124 25 TOWANA RD ROSIN RICHARD & DRITA BIRMINGHAM, MI 48012 PO BOX 2416 FREI MURIEL J REV TRUST SANTA FE, NM 87505 2556 CAMINO SAN PATRICIO ASPEN CTR FOR ENVIRON STUDIES ASPEN, CO 81611 100 PUPPY SMITH ST BERNARD SUSAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8908 PARKER STEPHEN ASPEN, CO 81611 1010 VINE ST #1010 P120 IV.B. WYCOFF ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 1010 VINE ST #1010 BYRUM PATRICIA BEAMS FAMILY TRUST WINSTON SALEM, NC 27104 2428 BITTING RD FLYNN VICTORIA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4388 MENDELSON MEL I & ROBERTA L LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 1 LMU DR #8145 SKADRON STEVEN J ASPEN, CO 81611-3272 1022 VINE ST RAUCHENBERGER CARL TRUST HUNTLEY, IL 601426310 11644 WEMBLEY DR MCDONAGH THOMAS G NEW ROCHELLE, NY 108017270 542 MAIN ST #200 GENDELS STACEY A NEW ROCHELLE, NY 108017270 542 MAIN ST #200 1025 VINE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 309 AABC #G MANIE MICHAEL B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11373 HYDE ARTHUR C JR ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX T CHAPMAN HARVEY G JR & RUTH J KIHEI, HI 96753-9349 717 KUPULAU DR BETTIO JACK A MANCHESTER, NJ 550334049 2985 ROUTE 547 MCF 2008 TRUST JUPITER, FL 33458 3535 MILITARY TRAIL #101 STRICKLAND WILLIAM SCOTT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2526 SMITH NANCY ROSS FOREST HILL, MD 21050 315 J WILLRICH CIR GETTES MARK NEW YORK, NY 10026 35 W 110ST ST #2B LUU CAM THU SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5399 81611 PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2066 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST CROWLEY ELAINE C ASPEN, CO 81611-1550 1124 VINE ST WENZEL KAREN M ASPEN, CO 81611 1125 VINE ST REPPLINGER WILLIAM M ASPEN, CO 81611 1125 VINE ST WALLACE LARRY L & MARY L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1146 BEKHAAZI SONIA YASMIN ASPEN, CO 81611 1127 VINE ST MLT PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 309 AABC #G BROOKES EDWARD ALAN REV LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1129 VINE ST 1131 VINE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 309 AABC #G ILICH MARK ASPEN, CO 81611 1132 VINE ST BAEHR LYNNE ASPEN, CO 81611 1132 VINE ST P121 IV.B. CHAN NICHOLAS ASPEN, CO 81611 1133 VINE ST #1133 LOWENSTEIN ADAM & MUSSON ELIZ FAM TRST SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 1002 SAN ROQUE RD HUNTER CREEK REALTY LLC WESTWOOD, MA 02090 30 WILLETT POND DR SHEAN MEGAN MICHELINE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4366 BOLTON LANCE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2762 FABER JOHN A COSTA MESA, CA 92626 3400 AVENUE OF THE ARTS #D210 NEWELL GEORGE S BOULDER, CO 80306 PO BOX 2179 KISKER ELLEN H TRUST LITTLETON, CO 80126 9075 RANCH RIVER CIR KERN SUSAN & ALBERT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 389 MALONEY JOHN V & ANNE J HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 1060 CENTERFIELD CT FREDERICK FAMILY TRUST EL CAJON, CA 92020 2488 CHARLES WAY PITKIN COUNTY BASALT, CO 81621 123 EMMA RD #204 LUCARELLI CHARLES ASPEN, CO 81611 1221 VINE ST GUBSER MARGARET B ASPEN, CO 81611 1227 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR TOBEL KEVIN W & MARY LYNN COMMERCE TWSP, MI 48032 8085 LOCKLIN VERNIER WILLIAM J & GLADYS M WYANDOTTE, MI 48192-3537 2040 DAVIS ST PECK ROBERT P & PAULA MAMARONECK, NY 10543 1050 NINE ACRES LN UKRAINE JOHN M ROCKPORT, MA 019662243 2 OLD PENZANCE RD MACTAVISH BRIDGET E ASPEN, CO 81611-3276 1232 VINE ST BELL MARTIN W SEATTLE, WA 981026813 400 MELROSE AVE E #601 LANGLEY WILLIAM LONDON UNITED KINGDOM W86LG, TOP FLAT 29 MARLOES RD ROUSE SUSAN ELIZABETH LONDON UNITED KINGDOM W86LG, TOP FLAT 29 MARLOES RD MALCOLM IAN AVALON NS WALES AUSTRALIA 2107, 35 QUEENS AVE ROSELLE VERONICA BOCA RATON, FL 33432 99 SE MIZNER BLVD #824 LEBACH DOROTHY JULIA TRUST BROOKLINE, MA 02445 23 CLAFLIN RD #3 1312 VINE LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1512 LARIMER ST #100 MELDAHL JOHN & DEBORAH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 2620 HUMBOLDT AVE S ASPEN HUNTER CREEK LLC CYPRESS, TX 77433 26915 RIVERBEND POINT LN LARSON KENNETH R BASALT, CO 816219341 161 WALTER RD PROESEL THOMAS N WINNETKA, IL 60093 855 MOUNT PLEASANT P122 IV.B. ZAUNER HEINZ J REV TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0451 STAGECOACH LN RAY GAYLE A TRUST CASTLE ROCK, CO 80108 634 CASTLE PINES DR S LEBACH JOAN C ASPEN, CO 81611 1322 VINE ST FRIEDMAN SANDRA BOCA RATON, FL 33434 19513 PLANTERS POINT DR WHIPPLE CANDACE ASPEN, CO 81611 413 VINE ST BECKER DANIEL A ASPEN, CO 81611 132 VINE ST #132 KOWAR JOSEPH ALBERT ASPEN, CO 81611-1549 133 VINE ST ROGERS MARY E & PETER S NEW YORK, NY 100212165 240 E 76TH ST APT 2E NEWELL GEORGE S JR BOULDER, CO 80306 PO BOX 2179 HUNTER CREEK COMMONS CORP INC ASPEN, CO 81611 1400 VINE ST CAMPBELL NICHOLE ASPEN, CO 81611 511 VINE ST MEDINA RICHARD A ASPEN, CO 816111593 512 VINE ST COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CARSON CITY, NV 89702 PO BOX 1927 FLETCHER KAREN K ASPEN, CO 81611 514 VINE ST GALLUS SHAWN M ASPEN, CO 81611 515 VINE ST RHINES MELISSA E ASPEN, CO 81611 515 VINE ST FRANZE LUCAS & AMBER ASPEN, CO 81611 516 VINE ST #516 WHITING RYAN L ASPEN, CO 81611 521 VINE ST FARADZHOV RUSLAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8306 DUCHEIN HILARY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8306 COLVER JOHN C ASPEN, CO 81611-3266 523 VINE ST TAYLOR SHAWN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 143 QUEIREL TAMARA N FERRO ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 143 MANDT JULIE K ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11813 ORISHKO MAXIM ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8962 DEMACEDO FABIOLA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8962 FRIEDLANDER VIVIAN REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 527 VINE ST AQUINO DIEGO ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11780 JOHNSON AQUINO CATALINA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11780 LURIE MARTIN W & CHERYL A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11113 P123 IV.B. PELOWSKI KATHRYN L ASPEN, CO 816124645 PO BOX 4645 ERICKSON HANS ASPEN, CO 81611 533 VINE ST SMITH BETH A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1758 TAYLOR LAURA J ASPEN, CO 81611 535 VINE ST ROBERTS DENISE M ASPEN, CO 81611 536 VINE ST AKTCHOURINE DMITRI ASPEN, CO 81611 536 VINE ST BOHN GERRY ASPEN, CO 81611 537 VINE ST ROSKIEWICZ MICHAEL & ANDREA ASPEN, CO 81611 538 VINE ST ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER FIANDACA ALFRED ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7713 OLIVER DAMON ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10916 STEWART KYLE ASPEN, CO 81611 614 VINE ST HORNBURG ANDREE ASPEN, CO 81611 614 VINE ST ATTEMA DEREK ASPEN, CO 81611 616 VINE ST HILE RYAN ASPEN, CO 81611 616 VINE ST VALLEY ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES BASALT, CO 81621 1450 E VALLEY RD #201 HARRIS ERIN ASPEN, CO 81611 621 VINE ST MOLDOVEANU DANIELA G ASPEN, CO 81611 622 VINE ST STINES STOWMAN L II ASPEN, CO 81611 622 VINE ST TULLMAN DEBORAH ASPEN, CO 81611 623 VINE ST RYAN KYM & PAT ASPEN, CO 81611 624 VINE ST CONARD THOMAS E ASPEN, CO 81611 625 VINE ST ONSGARD BRAD ASPEN, CO 81611 626 VINE ST NIEUWLAND ZLOTNICKI ALEXANDER OAKLAND, CA 946092606 4209 SHAFTER AVE MACK ALEXANDRA OAKLAND, CA 946092606 4209 SHAFTER AVE BONGIORNO PHILIP & LINDA ASPEN, CO 81611-1594 628 VINE ST GREGORY SHANA ASPEN, CO 81611 631 VINE ST BARRETT MARIANNE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4776 STEPHENSON TERRY ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 633 VINE ST HOLZER HANS U ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11928 P124 IV.B. MOONEY THOMAS ASPEN, CO 81611 635 VINE ST MCLENDON CHRISTOPHER JR ASPEN, CO 81611 636 VINE ST # 636 YOUNG LEA ASPEN, CO 81611 636 VINE ST # 636 ODELBERG JEANETTE ASPEN, CO 81611 637 VINE ST ARONSON DANIEL B ASPEN, CO 81611 638 VINE ST ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER DENVER, CO 80210 1300 S STEELE ST DANFORTH DAVID N ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1863 DEQUINE SHARON L ASPEN, CO 81611 713 VINE ST RACHILLA KALA M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3184 BACSANYI KARLA S ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9226 TRAN DANNY ASPEN, CO 81611 0716 VINE ST LI MEI YING ASPEN, CO 81611 0716 VINE ST PARKER JAMES & DARCY ASPEN, CO 81611 721 VINE ST #721 PEGIEL TOMEK & MALGORZATA ASPEN, CO 81611 722 VINE ST KRAHE CATHLEEN M TRUST ASPEN, CO 816124291 PO BOX 4291 COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S ASPEN, CO 81611 531 W GILLESPIE ST PRITCHARD MICHAEL D & LAURA MORRIS ASPEN, CO 81611 725 VINE ST TALARICO MEGAN M ASPEN, CO 81611 726 VINE ST BARTELL NICHELLE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4496 WHITE MATTHEW G & SARAH E ASPEN, CO 81611 731 VINE ST CAREY PATRICIA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1440 GOMES PEPPER J E & SUSAN R ASPEN, CO 81611-1595 732 VINE ST ROLAND DANIEL P ASPEN, CO 81611 733 VINE ST #733 TIDWELL JOAN ASPEN, CO 81611 734 VINE ST BURTCH GEORGE W ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8345 MANN CATHERINE A ASPEN, CO 81611 736 VINE ST PRIDE KRISTIN ASPEN, CO 81611 737 VINE ST SABA ROY ASPEN, CO 81611 737 VINE ST SEUBERT STEPHAN W ASPEN, CO 81611 738 VINE ST STEADMAN PAMALA ASPEN, CO 816113269 811 VINE ST P125 IV.B. LEE MICHAEL P & SUSAN D ASPEN, CO 81611 812 VINE ST WEISS RONALD K & JODI L SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 3000 TOWN CENTER STE 540 SMITH MICHAEL J ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9792 PAYNE BRIAN ASPEN, CO 81611 815 VINE ST #815 RICHARDS RACHEL E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3393 MORROW HEATHER E ASPEN, CO 81611 821 VINE ST ALLEN LEONARD A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8316 WOOLLEY SUSAN C ASPEN, CO 81611 823 VINE ST KING WANDA JO ASPEN, CO 81611 824 VINE ST YOUN CHAN JU & KUN CHEE HOUSTON, TX 77024 11101 S COUNTRY SQUIRE PARIS JOHN H SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 2960 NEILSON WAY # 101 GEIST SUSAN L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8431 STEPHENS RICHARD L ASPEN, CO 81611 832 VINE ST PETROSIUS EDWARD W II ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4199 EBEST RICHARD A ASPEN, CO 81611 834 VINE ST WONG CHRISTOPHER SENG-YENG ASPEN, CO 81611 835 VINE ST ALVAREZ OTILIO ARTEMIO AVILA ASPEN, CO 81611 836 VINE ST AVILA NORMA ASPEN, CO 81611 836 VINE ST SILVER JEROME D & STEPHANIE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46278-1223 6835 FOX LAKE DR S 1326 VINE STREET LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1326 VINE ST BELL MOUNTAIN TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2792 FRIEDMAN DANIEL S ASPEN, CO 81611 1328 VINE ST LESTER GEOFFREY ERIE, PA 16509 5029 ROBINHOOD LN LUSK ASPEN INVESTMENTS LTD HOUSTON, TX 77063 7503 DEL MONTE ADLER FAMILY LLC PRINCTON, NJ 08540-4618 287A NASSAU ST DOPKIN DEVELOPMENT LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4696 MAHONEY SHARON A ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11694 BALCOM SYLVIA J ASPEN, CO 81611 1336 VINE ST BUSCH MARK W & ANITA R PITTSFIELD, MA 01201 75 MOUNTAINVIEW DR HARRIAGE STEPHEN M ASPEN, CO 81611 1338 VINE ST P126 IV.B. SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 OAK LN, COTTONWOOD LN, MAPLE LN HARRIS DAVID G REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 533 SPRUCE ST HARRIS MARGARET A REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 533 SPRUCE ST DELARBRE ALEXANDRA ASPEN, CO 81611 200 COTTONWOOD LN BUSCH JON LOWELL ASPEN, CO 81611 548 RACE ST TASSE JEFF SOUTHBRIDGE, MA 01550 37 HOOK ST MCGUIRE MARY SOUTHBRIDGE, MA 01550 37 HOOK ST BERKMAN KATHY & ANDREW HOUSTON, TX 77005 3706 SUNSET BLVD KAUFMAN STEPHEN M TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77056 5120 WOODWAY #6002 HAUENSTEIN WARD & ELIZABETH ASPEN, CO 81611 535 SPRUCE ST ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD PRIMIANI MARC S LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 11100 SANTA MONICA BLVD #600 COATES MARY ANN TRUST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73142 12664 VAL VERDE DR COATES M A TRUST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73125 PO BOX 25277 LEWIN JOHN R JR ASPEN, CO 81611 906 VINE ST LARSON WENDY LEE REV TRUST BASALT, CO 81621 71 WAPITI WY VAUGHAN PATRICK ASPEN, CO 81611 908 VINE ST CARDER FAMILY LLC DENVER, CO 80210 1100 S RACE ST JESTER HOLDINGS LLC NEW YORK, NY 10023 171 W 71ST ST #8D KLUG WARREN & KATHLEEN ASPEN, CO 81611 100 N 8TH ST #3 PAULSON WILLIAM T ASPEN, CO 816113271 1043 VINE ST ROTHCHILD JOHN H TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 331391327 5 ISLAND AVE #11J ROTHCHILD SUSAN BERNS REV TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 5 ISLAND AVE #11J GIAQUINTO ALAN WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480 211 WATER ST STANLEY NANCY C BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 8918 BURTON WY #4 KLEPPINGER KENT ASPEN, CO 81611 1047 VINE ST MELEG TANJA HELLER ASPEN, CO 81611 1048 VINE ST MELEG MARK A J ASPEN, CO 81611 1048 VINE ST BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 164 LITTLE PARK RD RAM PROPERTIES LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19803 PO BOX 7107 P127 IV.B. BAKER JAMES A SR ASPEN, CO 81611 1052 VINE ST HUANG YANG ASPEN, CO 81611 949 VINE ST #949 LU RONG Q ASPEN, CO 81611 949 VINE ST #949 SARNO JOHN J JR REV TRUST STONEHAM, MA 02180 6 EUSTIS ST WILLIAMS JOHN THOMAS JR IRREVOC TRUST BOXFORD, MA 01921 76 SURREY LN ELLIS CHRISTOPHER & AUDREY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8386 OVERTON JAMES E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9818 MUSSO PAMELA L & RICHARD L DENVER, CO 80220 319 LOCUST ST CASTLE AND CONUNDRUM LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 814 W BLEEKER ST #C1 CHASE EMILY ASPEN, CO 81611 100 PUPPY SMITH ST SHOSTAC DAVID & ALEXES LOS ANGELES, CA 90052 2509 AIKEN AVE WALLE GABRIELE ASPEN, CO 81611 1121 VINE ST DELISE DONALD LEE WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 345 WAGAR RICHARD H ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9063 HEEDUM SHARON D DENVER, CO 80210 2315 S MONROE ST PAGNUCCO JACQUELYN CAROL ASPEN, CO 81611 213 VINE ST #213 COOK ARTHUR R JR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 214 VINE ST MALCOLM IAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4671 KINKEAD T W VERO BEACH, FL 32963-3942 670 N TOMOHAWK TR NIRSCHEL PAULA ASPEN, CO 81611 218 VINE ST SPECK KARIN C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9912 BRITTON JEROME BOONVILLE, NY 13309 232 ACADEMY ST FORD CATHY BOONVILLE, NY 13309 232 ACADEMY ST NEWELL GEORGE BOULDER, CO 80306 PO BOX 2179 BRUCE DAVID LAWRENCE ASPEN, CO 81611 224 VINE ST KOWAR HEIDI MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 225 VINE ST ASPEN HEIGHTS AT HUNTER CREEK LLC WINTER PARK, FL 32789 941 GEORGIA AVE KINKEAD THOMAS WARFIELD III VERO BEACH, FL 32963 670 N TOMAHAWK TRL OLSON FAMILY TRUST TULARE, CA 93274 198 S OAKMORE ST WRAITH STEPHEN KERR PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 110 SAUSAL DR P128 IV.B. LAI VALDRIAN J ASPEN, CO 81611 232 VINE ST LLOYD ROBIN A ASPEN, CO 816124928 PO BOX 4928 CHISHOLM REV TRUST FLAGSTAFF, AZ 86004 3725 N GRANDVIEW DR KRIBBS DONOVAN ROSS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8761 DEVLIN KAREN RUBEY ASPEN, CO 816111087 6 TUMBLEDOWN LN GEIB JAMES R SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 6831 PRINSTER MICHAEL THOMAS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3281 LEWIS ASPEN CONDO LLC COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133-5902 3330 DEVON RD CIBIK MICHAEL A PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 334 S FRONT ST MCMILLAN KATHERINE J 2016 TRUST GLOUCESTER, MA 01930 650 WASHINGTON ST BROCKHOFF BRUCE & KRISTINE SOUTH YARRA VICTORIA 3141 AUSTRALIA, 27 CLOWES ST MASLOW LINDA BETHESDA, MD 20817 7912 DEEPWELL DR BUNCE BARBARA A ASPEN, CO 81611 321 VINE ST MATTADOR LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 322 VINE ST #322 NIX ROBERT F OAK PARK , IL 60302 1111 ONTARIO ST #1105 HAYDEN PATRICIA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 6356 FORESTER DR CRUZ CATALINA & LAURA O ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2661 SURFAS JODI ASPEN, CO 81611 326 VINE ST #326 LEE JOSEPH B III & BRENDA R GRENANDA, MS 38901 131 HOLLY LN FLETCHER JANET TRUST SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 4 CROWS NEST CIR FLETCHER PAUL TRUST SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 4 CROWS NEST CIR SOUFER KARA & JACQUES MALIBU, CA 90265 20468 SEABOARD RD GREENE ANTHONY FRANK TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 705 CASTLE CREEK DR AERIE LLC WAUKESHA, WI 53187-0828 PO BOX 828 SZORADI STEPHEN H ASPEN, CO 81611 336 VINE ST GRIFFITH MARY FRANCES ASPEN, CO 81611 336 VINE ST WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C PLANDOME, NY 11030-1415 24 MIDDLE DR HARBIN RICHARD E & KIMY ROINSTAD DEL MAR, CA 92014 117 SPINNAKER CT READ TRACY LEEFE COVINGTON, LA 70433 622 S AMERICA ST VINE ST RENTALS LLC BOULDER, CO 80304 928 MAPLETON AVE P129 IV.B. HOLSONBACK JOHN K & HILDE G ASPEN, CO 81611 416 VINE ST GORDON LETICIA NEW YORK, NY 10019 15 W 53RD ST #16B WRIGHT THOMAS & ANNE INDIANOPOLIS , IN 46220 5670 GUILFORD AVE FAINSOD EVA MEXICO D F 11590, DANTE 26 BIS - CLOLNIA ANZURES KAPLAN ROBIN FRANCE, 5 RUE PORTE DE FOURQUEUX 78112 FOURQUEUX OBR WARREN FRANCE, 5 RUE PORTE DE FOURQUEUX 78112 FOURQUEUX RICHMOND ILENE LIV TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 714 N ROXBURY DR SPIEKERMANN MICHAEL MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 558 30TH ST BARDEEN WILLIAM LIV TRUST WARRENVILLE, IL 60555 29 W 280 IROQUOIS CT N RAUPP MARVIN L HERMOSA BEACH, CA 902542411 2629 MANHATTAN AVE # PMB277 ETS HOKIN DOUGLAS PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 6710 MOTHER LODE DR ETS HOKIN TRACY PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 6710 MOTHER LODE DR ETS HOKIN RUSSELL PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 6710 MOTHER LODE DR WALLACE FAMILY TRUST PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 6710 MOTHER LODE DR ANASTASI JOAN ASPEN, CO 81611 435 VINE ST PINKHAM SYBIL SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 423 LONG HILL DR JACKSON ERNA D REVOCABLE TRUST ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87120 6300 RIVERSIDE PL NW #200 PUGH SUSAN L & ROBERT G BLOOMINGTON, IN 47408 5445 E JAMES RD ASPEN HUNTER CREEK #113 LLC BOONVILLE, NY 13309 PO BOX 255 GOLDSMITH LYNN BASALT, CO 81621 40 SUNSET DR UNIT 10A SCHNEIDER SID BASALT, CO 81621 40 SUNSET DR #10A CUSSAGUET CATHERINE ASPEN, CO 81611-1549 115 VINE ST STELLJES PETER V ASPEN, CO 81611 121 VINE ST #121 GUENTHER HERBERT TRUST ASHLAND, OH 44805 696 G COUNTY ROAD 1302 MURTAGH PATRICK & TERESA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10304 LOCK DENISE E ASPEN, CO 81611 125 VINE ST KERSHAW ROBERT B BALTIMORE, MD 21217 1314 BOLTON ST WARD JOHN THOMAS BALTIMORE, MD 21217 1314 BOLTON ST CAMMACK DARELL R JR SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33706 11000 GULF BLVD #402 QUINN MICHAEL KIERON & KATHLEEN MARIE WASHINGTON, DC 20016 3623 38TH ST NW #303 P130 IV.B. WERTZ JEFFREY LARKIN ASPEN, CO 81611 717 VINE ST ZAPPIA JOSEPH ASPEN, CO 81611 517 VINE ST ERSPAMER JOHN ASPEN, CO 81611 534 SPRUCE ST #1 POUTOUS MARCIA ASPEN, CO 81611 534 SPRUCE ST #1 HAUER MINEKO ASPEN, CO 81611 202 COTTONWOOD LN MINERS MOUNTAIN HOUSE LLC TOLEDO, OH 43615 5107 HIGHPOINT DR MACK EDWARD E TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60654 321 N CLARK ST #1000 PETTUS KRISTINA & WYATT GRAHAM, TX 76450 1600 RANDY DR ZUPANCIS ROBERT L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9609 SPRUCE PLACE TOWNHOMES HOA ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 511 SPRUCE ST BURTIN JORGE & ROSALBA TRUST LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 2543 MONACO DR JKB INVESTMENT CO LLC FARMINGTON, MI 48334 31200 NORTHWESTERN HWY FOX CROSSING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA GD ASPEN PARTNERSHIP ROSEMONT, IL 60018 6250 N RIVER RD #11-100 PORTER SUZANNE T & B G WELLINGTON, FL 33414 13831 QUARTER HORSE TRL FOXY LLC ADDISON, TX 75001 15280 ADDISON RD #301 FISHMAN FAMILY TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 16830 VENTURA BLVD #400 LOEWENBERG 2007 TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60601 225 N COLUMBUS DR #100 LEVIN RONALD HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 230 N DEERE PK DR 565 RACE STREET LLC SURFSIDE, FL 33154 67 BAL BAY DR JABLIN ROBERT C & VARDA BOCA RATON, FL 33496 7894 DUNVAGEN CT JUST HAVE FUN LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 450 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 570 KINGEN DAVE & CHRISTINE ASPEN, CO 81611 800 GIBSON ASPEN VIEW RESIDENCES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 798 GIBSON AVE WALNUT STREET TOWNHOMES ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 506 WALNUT ST HUNTER CREEK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1400 VINE ST GSS SPRUCE LLC BASALT , CO 81621 PO BOX 3377 MALTER MARCI A REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60657 1754 W SURF ST SCHREIBER RON HOLLYWOOD, FL 330192837 3101 S OCEAN DR #2308 SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 WILLIAMS WY P131 IV.B. GREENWOOD GRETCHEN ASPEN, CO 816111957 210 S GALENA ST #30 LEVEN ROBERT JAMES & MICHELLE ATLANTA, GA 30327 420 N ERROL CT CADG ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC FARMERS BRANCH, TX 752348945 1800 VALLEY VIEW LN #300 FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LOTS 4 & 6 LLC HOUSTON, TX 77005 6330 MERCER ST WHITE RIVER REAL ESTATE LLC NEW YORK, NY 10013 345 GREENWICH ST #6B WALSH GRAHAM MIAMI BEACH, FL 331404273 1330 W 29TH ST MAHER WALSH CANDACE MIAMI BEACH, FL 331404273 1330 W 29TH ST FCHC LLC JACKSONVILLE, FL 32257 3030 HARTLEY RD #140 PORTER SUZANNE T & BARRY G WELLINGTON, FL 33414 13831 QUARTER HORSE TRL FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LLC ALAMO, CA 945071572 3000-F DANVILLE BLVD #500 CENTENNIAL ASPEN II LP ASPEN, CO 81611 100 LUKE SHORT BENNETT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 534 SPRUCE ST P132 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015Matrix of The City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements To review full procedures for all applications, reference 26.415 of The City of Aspen Building Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance. When submitting multiple step applications, do not replicate submission materials. Two copies of the application are required for a Certificate of No Effect, 15 copies are required for each meetingall other review. Also note that an electronic version of all text documents is required in a .txt, .doc, .wpd, or .rtf format. Type of Review Application Requirements Fees Deposit FeeNotice Requirements Designation 1-9, 11, 12 $0 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) at HPC and Council Exempt Development Consult with Historic Preservation Officer to confirm exempt status $0 None Certificate of No Negative Effect 1-9, 15, 17 $245 None Minor Development 1-10, 15, 16, 17, 36 $735 Posting Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (b) Major Development / Conceptual 1-10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 Development under 1,000 s.f., $1,470 / Development over 1,000 s.f., $2,940Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) Major Development / Final 1-10, 16, 21, 22, 36 Paid at time of conceptual Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) Substantial Amendment 1-10, 16, 23, 24, 25, 36 $735 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) Demolition 1-9, 26 $2,940 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) Relocation 1-9, 27-34 $2,940 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split 1-10 $1,470 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) at HPC and Council Rescinding Designation 1-9, 35 $1,470 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c) at HPC and Council P133 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 KEY 1.Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2.The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 3.A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4.An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5.A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project’s physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 6.A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 7.A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review criteria and The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines relevant to the development application. 8.Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 9.Completed Land Use Application Form, Signed Fee Agreement, and Fee. 10.Dimensional Requirement Form. 11.Site or historic district boundary map. 12.Property or district description including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 13.Identification of the character-defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. 14.Verification that the proposal complies with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 15.Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of the proposed work. 16.An accurate representation of all major building materials and finishes to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. 17.Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features in its context. 18.Scaled drawings of the proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations in the neighborhood context. 19.Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, 3-D model (digital or physical) or streetscape elevations. 20.Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 21.A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the Final Development Plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 22.Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at ¼” = 1.0’ scale 23.A revised site plan 24.Revised scaled elevations and drawings 25.Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. 26.Written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard, or narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 27.A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 28.A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and justification for the need for relocation. 29.A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 30.A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 31.Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 32.Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. 33.If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site’s property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 34.Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 35.A written description of how the property does not meet these criteria for designation. 36.A lighting plan indicating the location of all exterior light fixtures and site lighting, and cut sheets for each type of fixture proposed. Light fixtures must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and meet the City Lighting Code. P134 IV.B. building materials and finishes Board Formed Concrete Darker Stain Logs with Existing Light ChinkingNon-reflective Standing Seam Metal Roof Mirror Historic Cabin GarageP135 IV.B. building materials and finishes Plaster Soffit & Non-reflective Metal Fascia Board Formed Concrete Rainscreen Stained Wood Siding and fencing Historic Cabin GarageP136 IV.B. P137 IV.B. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LOTS 4 & 6 LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: LOTS 4 and 6, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded June 20, 2005 in Plat Book 74 at Page 17. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 553 & 541 RACE ALLEY, ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCUMBRANCES: Deed of Trust from : FOX CROSSING PROPERTIES LOTS 4 & 6 LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of : INDEPENDENT BANK Original Amount : $1,552,500.00 Dated : August 31, 2015 Recorded : September 2, 2015 Reception No. : 622917 This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: December 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM Job No. PCT24477W P138 IV.B. P139 IV.B. P140 IV.B. P141 IV.B. P142 IV.B. P143 IV.B. P144 IV.B. P145 IV.B. P146 IV.B. P147 IV.B. P148 IV.B. P149 IV.B. P150 IV.B. P151 IV.B. P152 IV.B. site vicinity map 541 race alley aspen, co 81611 P153 IV.B. P154 IV.B. P155 IV.B. P156 IV.B. P157 IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. P158 IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $___________flat fee for ____________________ $____________ flat fee for ____________________________________ $___________ flat fee for ___________________ $_____________ flat fee for____________________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: _______________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________ City Use: Fees Due: $____Received $_______ P159 IV.B. HPC Final Review P160 IV.B. ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 P161 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Exemption from Growth Management Quota System Tax Credits P162 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P163 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 application request - final review Post War Aspen Rustic Line Shacks - 541 Race Alley, Aspen, CO rev 5. 11.16.2015/12.9.16/2.27.17 This is an application for HPC major development approval to relocate two landmarked, free- standing 1960’s era cabins, combining them into a single family residence, constructing a full basement underneath both cabins, and adding a two garage behind the historic landmark structure. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, according to the Plat recorded June 20, 2005 in Plat Book 74 at Page 17, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The property’s Parcel ID # 273707392006. The survey states that it is approximately +/- 6,068.38 SF in size. The property is zoned R-6 Residential. A vicinity map locating this property is included in the drawings section of this application booklet. This application is being submitted by the owner of the property, Fox Crossing LLC Lots 4 &6, managed by Mr. John Morton (hereinafter, "the applicant"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the General Warranty Deed and Title Insurance Policy. A letter from Mr. Morton authorizing Willis Pember Architects, Inc to submit this application is attached as Exhibit #2. The staff has issued a pre-application conference summary for this project (see Exhibit #7, Pre- Application Conference Summary). This summary indicates that this proposal is considered to be a major development requiring conceptual and final review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415.070 C of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Conceptual approval has been previously granted, ref. Resolution #12, 2016 5.26.16. HPC approved the applicant’s request for a side yard setback variance, a 500SF floor area bonus for the property and two RDS variations; the first regarding porches: a minimum six foot depth where historically only 5 ft exists, and the second regarding build-to lines as part of the conceptual approval. This application has been organized to respond to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for relocation and building additions, followed by Exhibits #1-7. First, however, a description of existing conditions and summary of the prior City development approvals granted to this property is presented to establish the context for this application. Cc: John Morton, Fox Crossing LLC, Lots 5+6 P164 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 II. Existing and Proposed Conditions The subject property is a 6,068 sq. ft. parcel of land located along the edge of Fox Crossing Park, within the Fox Crossing Subdivision. The property is improved with a one storey residence that is estimated to have been built in the 1960’s. The property was designated by the City as a landmark structure via the Aspen Modern Program. A second, identical residence historically was located in alignment to the other and collectively both were known as Line Shack #1 and Line Shack #2. Both are landmarked structures; the second being currently located in temporary, on-site holding on adjacent Lot 5. The owner is in the process of selling Lot 5 and will retain ownership of Lot 6. Relocation of both structures is justified as the Fox Crossing Subdivision approvals re-drew property lines, and both shacks can only be co-located on Lot 6, if both are relocated. The property has previously received approval for two scenarios that have not moved forward. In 2005 HPC reviewed and approved a single family home the linked the log cabins together as one free market house. In 2008, HPC approved a design which proposed one of the cabins would function as a free market home, including a small addition, and the other cabin would be a voluntary, ‘for sale’ affordable housing unit. The ’for sale’ affordable housing unit was proposed so that the second cabin would be exempt from counting in floor area. The project also received a 500 SF floor area bonus from HPC. The owner did not go forward with the 2008 approvals, but did create and sever three TDR’s from the site, as did the Fox Crossing subdivision when originally created in 2005 leaving just 1,500 SF of allowable floor area for Lot 6, enough to cover both cabins with 16 SF of FAR remaining. The requested 500 SF bonus is the only way this proposal can go forward. (Ref. response to guidelines 26.415.110, benefits.) lll. Conformance to Land Use Guidelines 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines The Final proposal will meet or exceed all requirements of these guidelines with the exception of the following: materials: ‘highly reflective surfaces shall not be used’. We propose to glaze the connector windows in mirror glass, as a gesture of architectural erasure, whereby, in real lived experience; its mass will effectively disappear, becoming ambient exterior landscape and continuation of historic wall fabric. (see model photos) Current energy efficient glazing and coatings are more reflective than their predecessors, and under many conditions behave as mirrors in spite of themselves, so the request is not as large or outrageous as it might otherwise seem. Since this is something new in the vocabulary of HPC review practices, we propose to review a full size mock-up in the field with staff, monitors and all of P165 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 HPC, as may be deemed necessary. This approach will be up for review at final hearing. front porches: ‘Must be a minimum of 6' deep’. The existing historic porches are only 5' and technically requires an exemption from this guideline. Approved at Conceptual Build-to lines: Because the property’s front yard is a public park, not building towards the front yard setback seemed a better approach and will require a variation from this standard. Approved at Conceptual 26.415.070 Development involving Designated Properties (Major) Conceptual This application includes the following: 1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. 3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. 4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. 6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 26.415.090 Relocation - Approved at Conceptual ref. resolution #12, 2016. Relocation standards The standard for relocation most relevant is #4, within section 26.415.090 B, - “The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties;” Response Indeed, the relocation exercise for both cabins is a foregone conclusion given the lot size and the pre-existing subdivision approvals. For approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: P166 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; Response Yes, Line Shack #2 has already demonstrated an ability to be moved, as it is currently secured over a structure of steel beams bearing on six temporary footing pads. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and Response: Yes. The applicant no longer retains use of Lots 4, 5 and 6. A request to temporarily relocate line shack #2 from Lot 5 to Lot 6 was approved by staff and monitor under Lot 5’s approvals. During construction, on-site holding, suspending both resources over the excavation is the preferred, and safest option. Micro-piles are anticipated on the North and South property edges. An on-site, interim relocation sketch is attached as an Exhibit #4, proposing LS#2 temporarily relocated to the NW corner of Lot #6, until approvals are in place for Lot #6, enabling the suspension of the resources on-site, over their proposed footprints. The SW corner of Lot #6 is also an option. 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response: Yes, please reference Exhibit #4 and the letter from the Architect Exhibit #6. The applicant is prepared to post the required assurance at the time of building permit, typically $30k per building. 26.415.110 Benefits – Approved at Conceptual, ref. Resolution #12 Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; Response Yes, we believe we have satisfied, or exceeded all applicable guidelines. Additionally, we believe we have developed a unique and exciting solution to a standard problem in restoration and that this solution will create a benchmark for the fledgling Aspen Modern Program that all parties can be proud of. P167 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; Response The gross area of additions, including connectors, is less than a third of the original size of the historic resource. Moreover, the effect of additional mass has either been ‘erased’ via de-materializing effect of mirrored cladding, or allocated to the rear corner of the site, resulting in virtually no affect to the front appearance of the historic resource and negligible effect to the alley. Additionally, historic fabric is created and extended into the reflection of the mirrored glazing, and in a phenomenal sense, visually restoring what has been lost. Finally, the remaining FAR is allocated to below grade development, further establishing the resource as the ‘key element’ of the project. c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; Response Yes. The proposed addition and additional FAR is virtually invisible from the front yard, the main Public right of way. The bonus, if granted is generally deployed underground, minimizing above grade mass. It is truly rare (and exemplary) that an addition to a resource is a fraction of the historic resource’s scale and moreover, virtually invisible from the front yard. d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; Response Yes. e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; Response Yes, materials will be of the highest quality. Cedar rain screen siding, and board formed concrete are anticipated for the new construction, while the original CMU foundation of the resource will be replaced as originally designed. f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; Response Yes, the connectors are significantly recessed behind the plane of the existing construction, 5’ from the front and moreover, have been subject to architectural ‘erasure.’ The center connector between the two cabins will perceptually not be present, eliminating any understanding of its dimensionality, depth or presence via the use of mirrored glazing on the east and west faces. Again, we would like the conceptual review to focus on the mass and scale of the proposal, letting the fenestration, and materials be a part of the final review process. g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or P168 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 Response N/A h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained Response Yes, the two cabins are paired on the site as originally existed, (albeit a bit closer) and will appear to be un-touched by development from the front yard, retaining the open park setting from the public right of way. The resources proposed exterior relationship to grade will be unchanged as little as possible from its relationship historically. 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements The design team has had one meeting with Hillary Seminick and a follow-up phone call. FAR questions and allowable deck area calculations were reviewed by Claude Salter and Jim Pomeroy. See attached e-mail correspondence, October 12th, 2015, Exhibit #5. Additionally a detailed review took place with Claude Salter on 4.4.16 with follow up the next day, regarding allowable elements in the setbacks and retaining walls. Additional meetings took place with the Engineering department on 4.4.16 to coordinate the drainage easement information between lots 5 and 6, as well as with Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray at the building department to review IEBC code, ceiling height minimums and ramps on March 25 and again on February 24, 2017. Further clarification was received in November/16 on the site’s history of TDR extractions from Amy Simon, and verified that the existing Max FAR, before approvals, is the FAR of the existing cabins + 16SF. 26.610 Impact Fees Response: The applicant is prepared to post the required assurances for relocation as well as all other impact fees assessed by the City of Aspen at time of building permit. 26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6) Response: The applicant is compliant with all dimensional requirements of R6 zoning with one exception; the applicant is requesting a side-yard setback variation as the combined side yard setback required is 15', while 6' is proposed, three feet on each side. (This may have already been memorialized in the prior subdivision planning.) lV. Conformance to Historic Preservation Guidelines Chapter 2-10, 14 P169 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 Following are the applicant’s responses to two chapters of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Chapter 10, which addresses building additions, and Chapter 14, the general guidelines, demonstrating how the proposed addition complies with the applicable guidelines. Building Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Response: NA 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Response: The proposed garage will be located behind the addition to the historic structure. It is attached to the historic structure via a 10’x10’ connector whose roof eave line tucks under the historic cabin’s roof eave line. The preservation of the historic eave is made possible only because of the proposal to lower the existing finish floor by +/- 16”, allowing a minimum 7’-0” finished ceiling height at the connector. This gesture, while entirely invisible from the exterior of the project, will also permit a safe, code compliant ceiling height over the historic porch, which currently stands at an unsafe dimension of 6’-3” at its leading edge, and not at all compliant with current building codes. 100% of the existing historic porch roof/ceiling is non- code compliant, i.e. less than 7’-0”, (R305.1, IRC 2009). 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Response: The proposed addition has a modern design, yet retains the low slope vocabulary of the resource’s roofs. The proportions of the windows and other openings, and the materials from which it will be built, will be further developed at final review. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Response: The addition has the same alignment with the rear yard alley as the existing residence. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Response: The garage has been designed to be considerably lower in size and scale as compared to the historic residence. It is compatible in size and scale with the restored line shacks, but is also lower in height. P170 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. Response: The garage will not be taller than the historic landmark structure. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Response: The proposed garage has been placed at the rear of the property, along the alley. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Response: The low slope roof form was chosen in an effort to minimize the mass and scale of the new addition and to ensure that the single storey historic structures remain the most prominent features on the property. Please note the garage does not have a flat roof. Eave thicknesses are compatible with the resource’s vocabulary. All roofs – new and old – have pitches. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Response: All connectors are attached so as to minimally impact or obscure the architectural features of the historic residence. All points of contact are set back from the edge of the primary facades of the resource so that they do not obscure or reduce the visual prominence of the historic shacks. The connector between line shacks is setback 5’ from the main wall of the resource on the front, while from the rear yard, the connector is setback three feet. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. Response: The exterior materials and detailing have been chosen to reference the historic construction of the residence via complimentary contrast. Please see the drawings. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. Response: A rooftop addition is not proposed; indeed lowering the main living level floor permits the connectors to tuck under existing eave lines and remedying unsafe and non- compliant ceiling heights while preserving the character of the resource’s roof line from the exterior. P171 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Response: Please see the response to Guideline 10.9 above. Chapter 14 – General Guidelines Accessibility 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic character is encouraged. Response: The garage and ground level of the residence will be accessible. However, since this is a single family residence proposal, regulations regarding accessibility do not apply. Color 14.3 Keep color schemes simple 14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes. 14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the façade elements. Response: A complimentary color scheme is proposed herein – ref. materials and finishes sheet. They will relate well to the resource and the garage, preserving the light colored chinking as the dominate expression of log construction. Lighting 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. P172 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 Response: The proposed garage and exterior soffit lighting will use simple lighting fixtures that are down-cast and shielded. Cut sheets are provided with the landscape and lighting plan. The existing surface mounted fixtures, which may or may not be historic, will be renovated and re-used with code compliant light bulbs. On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties 14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features. 14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 14.11 Plan repainting carefully 14.12 Provide a weather protective finish to wood surfaces. 14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible Response: The applicant will follow these guidelines in maintaining the historic cabins. Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic façade materials. Response: The applicant will comply with these guidelines to the extent that they apply to this small residential proposal. Mech. equipment is located on the north side of the garage, fully screened behind a high fence that includes trash and mechanical equipment. Driveways and Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. P173 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi-family uses, should not be visually obtrusive. Response: The applicant has followed these guidelines in the design of the garage and the walkways/driveway providing access to the garage and home. Signs 14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. 14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. 14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features. 14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs. 14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site. Response: The applicant would like to retain the historic ‘line shack #1’ and ‘line shack #2’ signs located on the south side of each cabin. Additional signage includes the code required address numerals depicted on the proposed east elevation drawings. The bird houses will remain intact on both shacks. P174 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 Narrative – how the final development proposal conforms and advances conceptual approvals Post War Aspen Rustic Line Shacks - 541 Race Alley, Aspen, CO 12.9.2016/rev.2.27.2017 a. All terms, requirements and requests of the conceptual approval, as recorded in resolution #12, 5.26.2016 are unaltered and unchanged. Moreover, the final application is consistent with the conditions of approval - including the 500 SF FAR bonus, the setback variations and the two Residential Design Standards waivers. b. The garage addition and the connector heights have remained the same as presented at conceptual review, +/- several inches. The West edge of the garage roof overhang as been reduced to 2’ from 4’, to acknowledge a re-located front door – ref. item ‘f’ below. c. One variation to the conceptual proposal’s footprint occurs at the garage connector; we request the north edge of the connector move 3’-10 1/2” to the north, extending the overall length of the connector from 10-0” to 13’-10.5”. The connector remains entirely recessed, and invisible from the most public face of the project, which remains unchanged. d. The north elevation of the garage connector is proposed to be glazed, which we feel is an improvement over the conceptual presentation, which was a solid concrete wall. Specifically it is an improvement to the transparency of the project thereby increasing legibility of the historic modules from all vantage points. e. Because of the plan change above, the total FAR calculation increases by +/- 38SF, still, however 24SF lass than max. allowable. f. The rear yard entrance into the home, at the bottom of the ramp, is placed at the connector between the two cabins. This approach is more consistent with RDS standards, if one construes the rear entrance as the front of the house. Previously, the entrance was into the glass connector between the garage and the North cabin. P175 IV.B. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 2.27.2015 g. The ‘courtwell’ design has been further developed to include exterior lighting, planting plan, code and zoning compliance updates. P176 IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC final: 3/1/17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.A100P177IV.B. FOX CROSSING MEADOW FOUND REBAR W/ ALUM. CAP LS# 33645 FOUND REBAR FOUND REBAR W/ ALUM. CAP LS# 33645 gravel driveconcrete drive FOUND REBAR FOUND REBAR FOUND SPIKE CABIN (LINE SHACK 1) gravel drive pvc pipes 6068.38 sq.ft.+/- LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 5 RACE ALLEY20' RIGHT OF WAYconcrete pad remnants foundation of "line shack 2" WITH ORANGE PLASTIC SITE BENCHMARK 7938.41' BASED UPON CITY OF ASPEN GPS MONUMENT #6 CLERK & RECORDER ______________________________ IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AT____O'CLOCK,___M. THIS _____DAY OF _______ IN PLAT BOOK _____ AT PAGE_____ AS RECEPTION NUMBER _____ THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based uponany defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect.In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced morethan ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. ENJOY THE GRANT HEREBY MADE. RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO COMPANIES EXERCISE THE RIGHTS HEREIN GRANTED AS SO TO INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE WELL AS THE RIGHT TO TRIM INTERFERING TREES AND BRUSH. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UTILITY EGRESS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AS ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND TELEVISION LINES, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER, PURPOSE OF INSTALLING, CONSTRUCTING, REPLACING, REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING RIGHTS OF WAY ARE DEDICATED TO THE PERPETUAL USE OF ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS WELL AS ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION STEVEN A. YELTON PLS. # 33645 BASIS OF BEARING = (970)923-2794SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 P.O. BOX 9 HIRED GUN SURVEYING LTD. - - DATE: 7/22/2015, 9/25/15 7/21/2015, 9/24/15 TOPO ADDED DATE DRAFTED: DATE SURVEYED: Notes DRAWN BY: 1507134DATA FILE NAME: Legend H T R O N INFORMATION FURNISHED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE INC., CASE NO. PCT24477W, EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 7, 2015 WAS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT LOT 6 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION JR INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED LOT 6, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 20, 2005 IN PLAT BOOK 74 AT PAGE 17, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. A BEARING OF N 67°40'24"W BETWEEN A FOUND PK NAIL AND SHINER LS#33638 AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 AND FOUND REBAR AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS#38215 AT THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER OF LOT 4. THE CABIN ("LINE SHACK 1") TO BE RELOCATED ON LOT 6, ALONG WITH "LINE SHACK 2"(TEMPORARILY ON LOT 4) AS DESCRIBED IN ORDINANCE NO. 50 (SERIES OF 2004). AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 50, 2004. RECEPTION NO. 511408 NOTE CONCERNING CABIN I, STEVEN A. YELTON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON JULY 22, 2015 OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN.P178IV.B. N03/01/17DATE OF PUBLICATION200' 400'800'100'1" = 200'C-0.0COVER SHEET03/01/17 HPC541 RACE STREETNOTES:1. ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSSHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS ANDSPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF ASPEN ("COA") MUNICIPAL CODE, COATECHNICAL MANUALS, AND APPLICABLESTATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANSAND THE TECHNICAL MANUAL OR ANY APPLICABLESTANDARDS, THE HIGHER QUALITY STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALL UTILITY WORK SHALL BEINSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE UTILITY.2. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/ORELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OFTHE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THEFIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ONE (1) SIGNED COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS, ONE(1) COPY OF THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA ANDSPECIFICATIONS, AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSION AGREEMENTS NEEDED FORTHE JOB ONSITE AT ALL TIMES.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING, SHORING,TRAFFIC CONTROL, ANDSECURITY.5. IF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED WHICHCOULD INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC IMMEDIATELY.6. ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATESTREVISION OF SAID STANDARD UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITHMUTCD TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAYAUTHORITY (TOWN, COUNTY OR STATE) FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES WITHIN OR AFFECTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MATERIALSNECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR AS DESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED,INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLYNOTED OTHERWISE.9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ROADWAYS FREE ANDCLEAR OF ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND DIRT TRACKED FROM THE SITE.10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATIONON A SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS KEPT ON THECONSTRUCTION SITE AND AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.11. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANYDRAWING. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT WOODY CREEKENGINEERING, LLC FOR CLARIFICATION AND ANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILTRECORD DRAWINGS.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COLORADOPERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THEEROSION CONTROL PLAN.16. ALL STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE LIMITSOF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO ANY OTHER EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTILSUCH TIME AS THE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED WITH HARD SURFACE ORLANDSCAPING.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN SUCH A MANNERAS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. INGENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF THE WATER LINES AND DRY UTILITIES.18. HEAT TAPE ALL PIPES.19. 100'-0" = 7935'-1.2"VICINITY MAP541 RACE541 RACE STREET, ASPEN, COP179 IV.B. atesN89°20'00"W85.41'N89°20'00"W85.41'71.05'S00°40'00"W71.05'6068.38 sq.ft.+/-LOT 6RACE ALLEY20' RIGHT OF WAYB1A1A2A3A5A6A7CDEF7934atesN89°20'00"W85.41'N89°20'00"W85.41'71.05'S00°40'00"W71.05'6068.38 sq.ft.+/-LOT 6RACE ALLEY20' RIGHT OF WAYE1E2N10'20'40'5'1" = 10'C-1.0BASINSNOTES:1. EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN CONSISTS OF LOT.2. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS ARE DETERMINEDBY TOPOGRAPHY AND STRUCTURE.HISTORICAL DRAINAGE BASINSPROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINSHISTORICAL DRAINAGE BASINSPROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS541 RACE541 RACE STREET, ASPEN, CO03/01/17DATE OF PUBLICATION03/01/17 HPC P180 IV.B. RACE ALLEY20'RIGHTOFWAYstorm gratesN89°20'00"W85.41'N89°20'00"W85.41'71.05'S00°40'00"W71.05'6068.38 sq.ft.+/-LOT 6RACE ALLEY20'RIGHTOFWAY-2.0%TRENCH DRAINPIPE BPIPE C1X SILVA CELLSCOVER = 2 FTAREA = 204 SFPIPE DPUMP VAULT-2.0%-2.1%TW=7935-12.5%-0.0%6" TRENCH DRAIN-8.4%-2.0%-2.5%-3.8%TOW=7937.5TOW = 7938.5-2.7%7934-16.7%-7.7% -12.8%-13.7%FLOW LINETBCINTEGRAL DECKDRAIN ONE4" PVC PIPEINTEGRAL DECKDRAIN TWO4" PVC PIPECONNECT TOTRENCH DRAINPIPE E-1.7%-2.7%-2.4%GREEN ROOF: 7935SLOPE > 2%TW=7938PIPE FPIPE HTD=7924.56TD=7934.85NM/D/YYSDNOT FOR CONST.5'10'20'2.5'XX/XX/XXCDFOR CONST.1" = 5'C-2.0GRADING &DRAINAGE541 RACEEXISTING TREE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE KEPTEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOURNOTES:1. ROOF AREA = 3089 SF2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA= 3873 SF.3. UTILITY LOCATIONS UNKNOWN AND ASSUMED.REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER IF DAMANGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. REPLACE IN-KINDTYPE, FLOWLINE, TOP BACK OF CURB ANDLOCATION.4. ALL INLETS ARE NDS 6" ROUND GRATES WITHSPEE-D CATCH BASINS7910SPOT ELEVATION XXXX.XXCONC. = CONCRETEHP = HIGH POINTTD = TRENCH DRAINUTILITY SERVICEE=ELECTRICUG=UNDERGROUND GASSS=SANITARY SEWERW=WATER541 RACE STREET, ASPEN, CO03/01/17DATE OF PUBLICATION03/01/17 HPC P181 IV.B. P182IV.B. P183IV.B. P184IV.B. P185IV.B. P186IV.B. Lighting Cutsheets2017-02-14 Coordination Set2017-03-01 HPC Final ReviewNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONIssuanceLIGHT 00LIGHT 03LIGHT 01LIGHT 02P187 IV.B. P188 IV.B. BW-Grass-Deschampsia cespitosa 05 BW-Penstemon 'Husker Red'_5 BW-Grass-Helictotrichon sempervirens 02 BW-Pere-Actea simplex Black Negligee BW-Grass-Schizachyrium scoparium 'Blaze' 05 BW-Pere-Allium 'White Giant' BW-Papaver Orientale 'Royal Wedding' B BW-Pere-Penstemon digitalis 'Husker Red' 01 2017-03-01 LIFT STUDIO | 541 RACE ALLEY | PLANT IMAGES P189IV.B. BW-Pere-Phytostegia virginiana 'Crown of Snow' BW-Seed-Lower Grass-Festuca idahoensis 02 BW-Pere-Tulip Black Parrot BW-Seed-Lower Grass-Koeleria macrantha 04 BW-Seed-Lower Grass-Agrostis scabra BW-Shrub-Physocarpus opulifolius 'Little Devil' 03 BW-Seed-Lower Grass-Bouteloua curtipendula 01 Courtwell-Pere-Euonymus fortunei 'Coloratus' 02 - ... 2017-03-01 LIFT STUDIO | 541 RACE ALLEY | PLANT IMAGES P190IV.B. Courtwell-Pere-Galium odoratum 01 Dining-Grass-Deschampsia cespitosa 05 - Copy Courtwell-Shrub-Cornus sericea 'Buds Yellow' Dining-Pere-Euonymus fortunei 'Coloratus' 02 Courtwell-Shrub-Cornus sericea 'Flaviramea' 03 - C... Dining-Pere-Galium odoratum 01 Courtwell-Tree-Amelanchier alnifolia 04 Dining-Shrub-Cornus sericea 'Flaviramea' 03 2017-03-01 LIFT STUDIO | 541 RACE ALLEY | PLANT IMAGES P191IV.B. Dining-Shrub-Symphoricarpos albus 02 Perimeter-Grass-Panicum virgatum 'Prairie Sky' 02 Dining-Shrub-Symphoricarpos albus 03 Perimeter-Pere-Achillea millifolium Grass-Pascopyrum smithii Perimeter-Seed-Taller Grass-Bouteloua curtipendul... Perimeter-Grass-Calamagrostis brachytricha 03 Seed-Turf-Fine Fescue Mix 2017-03-01 LIFT STUDIO | 541 RACE ALLEY | PLANT IMAGES P192IV.B. PRECEDENT IMAGES LIFT STUDIO LLC | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | PO BOX 2748 | ASPEN, CO 81612 | 970 404 5610 | WWW LIFTSTUDIOLANDSCAPE.NET HPC Final Review—2017-03-01 LIFT P193IV.B. PRECEDENT IMAGES LIFT STUDIO LLC | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | PO BOX 2748 | ASPEN, CO 81612 | 970 404 5610 | WWW LIFTSTUDIOLANDSCAPE.NET HPC Final Review—2017-03-01 LIFT P194IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC FINAL: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674A102P195IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674A.200P196IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC FINAL: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674A201P197IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16,HPC 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674A202P198IV.B. ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC FINAL: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674A203P199IV.B. north elevation 0’ 4’ 8’ 20’P200IV.B. race alleytypical fence elevation 0’ 4’ 8’ 20’P201IV.B. east elevation | race alley 0’ 4’ 8’ 20’P202IV.B. west elevation | parkside swale0’ 4’ 8’ 20’P203IV.B. ISSUE:PROGRESS: 98% SDHPC SUBMITTAL:4.27.2016, 12.9.16PROGRESS: 5.16.2016 6.12.16HPC: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, COCONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE ENGINEERING1040 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(970) 618 7708SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIO LLCPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN V970 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, CO 81656CONTACT: JOSH RICE970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN BUILD GENERAL CONTRACTORRUDD CONSTRUCTION132 PARK AVENUEBASALT, CO 81621CONTACT: SCOTT DURYEA(V) 970 618 7200FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONA401P204IV.B. ISSUE:PROGRESS: 98% SDHPC SUBMITTAL:4.27.2016, 12.9.16PROGRESS: 5.16.2016 6.12.16HPC: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, COCONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE ENGINEERING1040 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(970) 618 7708SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIO LLCPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN V970 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, CO 81656CONTACT: JOSH RICE970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN BUILD GENERAL CONTRACTORRUDD CONSTRUCTION132 PARK AVENUEBASALT, CO 81621CONTACT: SCOTT DURYEA(V) 970 618 7200FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONA402P205IV.B. 24A C 13B ISSUE: 98% SDHPC: 11.30.2015, 4.27.16, 12.8.16PROGRESS: 5.16.16, 6.12.16, 6.23.1611.2.16HPC FINAL: 3.1.17PERMIT:CONSTRUCTION:PROJECT # 1403FILENAME: 1403ARCHITECTWILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS, INC412 N. MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 81611CONTACT: WILLIS PEMBER(V) 970 920 1727STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREVOLVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN1040 MAIN STCARBONDALE, CO 81623CONTACT: SARA MICKUS(V) 970.510-0773SURVEYORHIRED GUN SURVEYINGP.O. BOX 9SNOWMASS, CO 81654CONTACT: TOM YOKUM(V) (970) 923-2794LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLIFT STUDIOPO BOX 2748ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: RYAN VUGTEVEEN(V) (970) 404 5610CIVIL ENGINEERWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,LLC520 E. HYMAN AVE. #201ASPEN, CO 81612CONTACT: JOSH RICE(V) 970 309 7130SOILS ENGINEERCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, INC4501 WADSWORTH BLVDWHEATRIDGE, CO 80033(V) 303 463 9317MECHANICAL CONSULTANT DESIGN-BUILD BY GC GENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.FOX CROSSING PROPERTIESLOTS 4&6 LLC6330 MERCER STREETHOUSTON, TEXAS 77005CONTACT: JOHN MORTONVC: 713 299 7674EX201P206IV.B. P207IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 2 Justin asked for volunteers for the Commercial design standards focus groups. Patrick, Willis, Bob, Jim, Gretchen and John volunteered 541 Race Alley – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Willis and Gretchen recused themselves. Jim seated and chaired. Debbie said the affidavits and public notices have been properly provided, Exhibit I. Amy said the two buildings discussed are called line shacks. Before the Fox Crossing development the site was an open field with the Victorian and line shacks and other structures on the site. In 2015 a subdivision was granted with the designation of two properties, the Victorian and the line shacks. The two shacks will be reunited and placed side by side as they were historically. They were 1964 rental units and were built by the Griffith family. There were a few proposals before that were approved but were not built. In this proposal the two line shacks would be connected together and used as a single family house. Previously TDR’s were sold and there is very little square footage that is available to build here right now. The allowed floor area basically only covers the two cabins. The applicant is able to expand because of some exemptions in the code. Basements don’t count 100% and garages don’t count 100%. They are also asking for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Setback variances are also requested and RDS’s. Relocation: Amy said this is a necessity and the lot that was created in the subdivision isn’t particularly generous for these two buildings. They originally had about 15 feet between them and they are proposing 8 feet between them. They are close to the side property lines which leads to some of the variances. Staff finds that the requirements are met for relocation and this is the best preservation method. Design review: The properties will be set on the site so that they have a generous front yard setback and well set back from the park so that they maintain a relationship to the Victorian house. There will be a one-story connector between them. P208 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 3 On the back side of the cabins there is another connector that leads to a one story garage. They are proposing a below grade court well that allows a walkout aspect of the basement and allows them some protective deck area below grade. Overall the architecture is very sensitive and does many things that HPC asks for. The connector elements slip below the existing eave lines and there is an interesting relationship between the old and new architecture. The architect has attempted to remove as little historic fabric as possible and keep the development low in scale. HPC needs to be aware that when you walk to the front porch of the cabins there is very low head clearance that doesn’t meet code which is 6.3’ Code is 6’8”. The applicant proposes to lower the floor of the house. You will not see this because the porch is surrounded by a solid log railing. They will have to add a panel to the lower part of the door because the threshold will be dropping but we feel this is a minimal impact and allows the project to keep a nice low scale and create some of the relationships to the connectors. With regard to the connector between the two houses as proposed originally it was only set back 5 feet from the historic houses and the guidelines call for ten feet. New exhibits we submitted (Exhibit II) which push the element further back and removing less of the side walls of the historic resource and making the connector piece as minimal as possible. The applicant has creative ideas for how to side the connector and they are considering using mirror because the reflectivity could tend to make the connector basically disappear. This is for final but the applicant wanted to introduce you to the concept. Amy said HPC is being asked to consider setback variances. This neighborhood was annexed into the city in 1989 and when that happened there were special setbacks. This property is zoned R-6 and in the West End you need 5 feet on each side and on this property you need ten feet on each side. The two cabins are to be placed 3 feet from their adjacent lot lines but they have deep eave overhangs which means after measurements they are actually only one foot from the side yard setbacks. You are asked to grant a 9 foot reduction on each of the properties and a 18 foot reduction of the combined requirement. That only happens right along the side of the cabins. The proposed garage also potentially needs a variance and it is 7 feet from the side yard setback instead of 10 feet. HPC could discuss moving the garage over 3 feet but the downside to that is that the more you move it over the more you block the view from the alley of the back of the two cabins. Staff isn’t recommending that requirement. The applicant is asking for a 500 square foot floor area bonus and with the revised drawings we think the bonus is deserved. Utility boxes etc. will be moved from the cabins. The P209 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 4 architecture is well designed and the connector has been addressed with their revisions. HPC needs to discuss the RDS’s. The standards state that the project be set closer to the front lot line and staff feels a variance is appropriate because the cabins should be subservient to the Victorian and should not be forward than what is proposed. Staff recommends approval with the amendments. Patrick asked about the position of the cabins. Amy said they will not be in the original location because when the subdivision was created they put the two buildings on separate lots. Derek Skalko represented Willis Pember architects. Ryan Vuutgraveen, Lift studio landscape architects for the project. John Morton, owner Derek said he is speaking for Willis who cannot speak on behalf of his own project. Ryan said we will focus on mass and sale, height and proportionality. We would like to make sure the landscape is seamlessly thread into the final review with materials and lighting for your review. The front yard is important but how Willis approached this from Race alley is also very intriguing. We want to make sure the new elements and the old elements work well and feel at home in the neighborhood. Derek said Race alley is essentially next to the Smuggler Trailer Park. The Park is situated to the west. We are looking at lot 6 for the two connecting line shacks. Race alley is the rear yard but yet it is the primary access point to and from that property. Derek presented some contextual site images on the TV screens. One of the line shacks is fairly close to its original location. To the south is the new construction recently built. The one line shack will move forward and the other will be moved to tie into it and the garage would be built on the north side of the property. We propose to eliminate all electrical and gas attachments to the line shacks and move them to the west side of the garage. The windows in the shacks will be restored. We will eliminate OSB infill panels on the back of the project and a new roof will be constructed that is more historically and contextually accurate. The structures are very simplified with a simple gable one story structure that sits approximately 14 feet at its top height. There will be very little disruption to P210 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 5 the structures which we feel warrants the bonus request. The intent is to restore the two line shacks back to their original state. Regarding the project concept we are set back from the Victorian to maintain the subservient relationship that they have always had. The two shacks have always been together and keeping them together allows the rear of the property to open up so that there is some relief from Race alley. The proposal on the north of the property is a one story garage, (two stalls). To the south is the proposed subgrade court well concept which will essentially reduce the mass and scale across the property pretty significantly and allow the view corridors to remain open. There was discussion of two separate structures but the concern was the additional mass that would be brought onto the site and it became congested in the rear of Race alley. We responded to staff’s concern regarding the connector element. We are looking at an 8 foot connection between the two shacks for circulation and a stair circulation. We have also reduced the court well in scale and size which gives a little more relief and contextually it aligns the strategy of the two structures. With these reductions in mind we feel it warrants the 500 square foot bonus. By lowering the entry porch there are no visual changes but it allows the structure to exist at code compliancy. 6’8” inches is mandated by code in modern standards. At 6’3” we run into several issues at the Bldg. Dept. Regarding the height we are subservient from the neighborhood. The court well is a relatively new philosophy for preservation. It is an ideal use and reduces the mass and scale but taking everything sub level. It also complies with the guidelines. The long term intention is to not put up a 5 or 6 foot tall fence around the property. We are creating more of a visual public amenity. We wanted to make sure HPC is aware of the court well because it is a part of the intricacy of the project. From the east and south exposure we get a quality amenable space. The bonus numbers are below 500 square feet but we request the ability to go up to the 500 square feet not to expand the concept but just in the reality of how things are constantly being redefined and re-interpreted in the City of Aspen. One of the interesting things Willis is proposing is a mirrored concept for the connecting elements. It creates an interesting visual concept and element with the idea that the massing goes away through transparency and reflectivity. As you review the actual resources the materiality in the wall where it is cut off ten feet back would essentially be perceived to extend the complete distance that historically existed. There won’t be concern of neighboring connectivity because they are so far set back to the north and west elements it just helps lighten and expand the spaces. P211 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 6 Questions and clarifications: Patrick asked if they discussed two separate units with staff which would solve the connector issue. Amy said previously one of the proposals that didn’t get built turned one of the line shacks into an affordable housing unit and left it free standing. It is not the desire of the applicant do to that. Bob said he loves the mirrors and they are a great use. It is a wonderful approach. Jim said he likes the mirrors also and it is a creative approach. The way they are positioned it is highly unlikely that they would be reflective. Patrick asked if the mirrors would be angled? From Race alley you would be seeing whatever ground is in front of it unless it is angled because you are looking down into it. Derek said it is a glazed vertical application. When you are in the inside you can see through and out. From the exterior it is a vertical application and the intention of Willis is to not pick up the sky and pick up everything that is directly related to the structures. The lawn would be extended in the mirroring concept. Patrick said it looks like the garage roof in the back is no higher than the pitch of the cabins. Derek said that is correct. Jim opened the public hearing. Maggie Harris said her house is on Spruce Street but the back of her house is on Race Street. My only problem is that everybody gets five foot setbacks rather than ten feet. Gretchen’s house and the one next have five foot setbacks and the alley has been destroyed because people park in the alley because there is no parking in front of the houses. I really like the project because it is low and everything else in the area is high and it is nice to have the view. The low houses change the neighborhood which is good because the neighborhood has monster houses. P212 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 7 Jim closed the public hearing. Commissioner discussion: Patrick said he hopes the meters will be on the west corner of the garage so that it is accessed between the properties rather than through the back yard. Maybe the garage could be moved three feet so that it has the ten foot setback and as you go around to Race alley you would see the historic house better. If cars are parking parallel in front of the garage that might be a fire hazard. Maybe move the garage further west so that there is an apron that you can fit a car in front of the garage and that would make the connector smaller going from the house to the garage. John said it is a trade off if you move 3 feet to the west or to the north of the property. Being the monitor on the adjacent property you will get a nice view of both sides and I would like to thank the applicant for proceeding with one garage which gives more exposure to one of the historic resources in its entirety. I can support the applicant’s original proposal and I wouldn’t modify it. If you moved further left it would encroach on the full unobstructed view of one cabin and then you lose that little piece of the other cabin popping out from the connecting piece, so you lose more historic fabric from certain angles. The roof of the garage has very sympathetic site lines to the break of the gable on the cabins. Regarding the 5 foot setbacks on the street it is a missed zoned street in some aspects and it would have been nice to have larger setbacks to accommodate congestion of vehicles. The applicant has done a nice job and I can support all of staff’s recommendations. The bonus is warranted and the side yard setbacks are acceptable. Staggering the cabins you would lose some of the historical integrity because they were designed to be line checked together. The examples that you showed regarding the mirrors indicate that it could work in a lot of ways. Bob said this is a great project and he listened to both points of view and would agree that the project should remain as presented. Jim said he appreciates the model and it is a good project and I am in full support of the project. Amy pointed out that Race Alley is almost a no parking area and the applicant might want to create a little parking pad so that when guests park here they won’t get a ticket. P213 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016 8 MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #12 with the conditions approved by staff. On condition #3 add that the variances apply to the below grade space. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; John, yes; Jim, yes; Patrick, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 540 E. Main Street – Planned Development, Project Review, Major Development, Conceptual Review, Demolition and Relocation of designated historic properties, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Review for the provision of Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for an Essential Pubic Facility and for the Development of Affordable Housing. Public Hearing cont’d from Feb. 24th Jim recused himself Willis was seated Gretchen was seated Amy said this is the third public hearing on this project. At the last meeting there was a switch in direction regarding the historic resource onsite. The applicant was specifically asked to come back and accomplish three things: Study the issue of where the historic resources should go. The applicant provided two site plans, one keeps the historic house and shed on the site but plans to use them as a housing unit. The other plan relocates the two structures and the barn to Holden Marolt property. If they are kept on the site most likely the interior would be lost even if they were kept in their existing position. Right now the proposal is to not have an interpretive museum on the property. If the resources are moved to Holden Marolt the idea is that they would be moved once right onto their final foundation. They would be handled in a manner that preserved the interior finishes since they would not be occupied. If the historic resources stay then the affordable housing project gets pushed toward the west side of the site into a single volume. If they are removed the application has been changed to create two buildings that include the affordable housing unit and the applicant has actually eliminated two units from the plan so the over scale of the project is reduced. Amy said HPC has also asked for the height of the police building in the front to be reduced and that has occurred. It is about a three foot height drop. Regarding the resolution of approval section #1 needs amended to be a little more clear. The approved project is for site plan option #2 that moves the buildings to Holden Marolt including demolition of the two buildings on P214 IV.B.